8471
Post by: olympia
None of these bastards will ever vacation in Rome again.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8343123.stm
CIA agents guilty of Italy kidnap
An Italian judge has convicted 23 Americans - all but one of them CIA agents - and two Italian secret agents for the 2003 kidnap of a Muslim cleric.
The agents were accused of abducting Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, known as Abu Omar, from Milan and sending him to Egypt, where he was allegedly tortured.
The trial, which began in June 2007, is the first involving the CIA's so-called "extraordinary rendition" programme.
The Obama administration has expressed its disappointment at the convictions.
"We are disappointed by the verdicts," state department spokesman Ian Kelly said in Washington.
He declined to comment further pending a written opinion from the judge, but said an appeal was likely.
Three Americans and five Italians were acquitted by the court in Milan.
5636
Post by: warpcrafter
Well, that's like sending somebody a letter telling them a library book is overdue after they've moved out of town.
Wow, I didn't like that quip so much that I wanted it posted twice.
That's better!
4042
Post by: Da Boss
It's a bit more serious than that.
Heh. Maybe the italians should send in a special team to abduct 'em.
14828
Post by: Cane
Hope the CIA members don't have too much of their time wasted as some judge tries to make an international stand.
They've got terrorists to capture.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
I think it would be great if they were illegally abducted. I'd find that hilarious.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
So... they don't actually have any of the Americans they're convicting in their custody?
I guess this kind of thing should be on the books, but I don't know if it's going to mean much over all.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
It won't, no.
It's still funny though.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Hope the CIA members don't have too much of their time wasted as some judge tries to make an international stand.
They've got terrorists to capture.
It's exactly this sort of arrogant 'we can do whatever we want, buddy!' American attitude that does more to swell the ranks of Al Qaida than any radical cleric could ever do.
Shame on you - how can you support illegal kidnap and torture?
241
Post by: Ahtman
Albatross wrote:It's exactly this sort of arrogant 'we can do whatever we want, buddy!' American attitude that does more to swell the ranks of Al Qaida than any radical cleric could ever do.
I think you forgot...
and two Italian secret agents
And the Egypt was involved as well, but I guess putting on blinders and blaming the US alone is just easier.
Albatross wrote:Shame on you - how can you support illegal kidnap and torture?
No, shame on you for being a finger pointer with half information and a lust for a sense of moral superiority. It is amusing that you arrogantly make blanket statements criticizing others for being so arrogant. That level of cognitive dissonance is impressive.
5470
Post by: sebster
Orkeosaurus wrote:So... they don't actually have any of the Americans they're convicting in their custody?
I guess this kind of thing should be on the books, but I don't know if it's going to mean much over all.
Well, it brings the issue into the light of the public. To the extent that the public care that their governments are abducting people and ferrying them around the world to be tortured, is the extent to which this matters. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ahtman wrote:And the Egypt was involved as well, but I guess putting on blinders and blaming the US alone is just easier.
And the German government was complicit in another abduction. There's no shortage of blame to be passed around.
11892
Post by: Shadowbrand
No dreamy Italian getaway for them!
5394
Post by: reds8n
The Americans were all tried in their absence
..didn't think that was legal over here anymore..?
116
Post by: Waaagh_Gonads
olympia wrote:
The Obama administration has expressed its disappointment at the convictions.
"We are disappointed by the verdicts," state department spokesman Ian Kelly said in Washington.
And that is how a reporter states the obvious kids....
5394
Post by: reds8n
Kilkrazy wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_absentia
yeah, seems there was, for us anyway, a legal change.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7596633.stm
But opponents say it would represent a major change to British law, where trials in absentia were until 2001 banned and are still extremely rare
Man, was I wrong..
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article4664049.ece
I knew the EAW was a terrible thing but... holy crap that's bad.
8471
Post by: olympia
Da Boss wrote:It's a bit more serious than that.
Heh. Maybe the italians should send in a special team to abduct 'em.
That would be great. I hope the CIA criminals send care packages to their Italian accomplices who ARE going to jail.
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
It's obvious though that the people behind it are getting away with it. After all, the guy who actually authorised it seems to be escaping retribution due to 'state secrecy laws'.
Has this REALLY achieved anything other than publicly damning a few scapegoats? (regardless of how involved they may have been)
4042
Post by: Da Boss
No not really.
But if it highlights to people the shady business thier governments are getting up to, that's good, to my mind.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Albatross wrote:Hope the CIA members don't have too much of their time wasted as some judge tries to make an international stand.
They've got terrorists to capture.
It's exactly this sort of arrogant 'we can do whatever we want, buddy!' American attitude that does more to swell the ranks of Al Qaida than any radical cleric could ever do.
Shame on you - how can you support illegal kidnap and torture?
All this would have been avoided had the British not been so arrogant as to break up the old Ottoman empire after WWI. Thanks Britain for screwing us all.  Automatically Appended Next Post: olympia wrote:Da Boss wrote:It's a bit more serious than that.
Heh. Maybe the italians should send in a special team to abduct 'em.
That would be great. I hope the CIA criminals send care packages to their Italian accomplices who ARE going to jail.
Wait you're ticked off because they grabbed a terrorist? They should have Treadstoned him instead.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Yes, I'm afraid we British left our dabs over an awful lot of the world.
The problem was compounded by lesser nations wanting to horn in on the Empire business, which led them to scramble round and scarf up whatever they could in all sorts of odd places.
8471
Post by: olympia
Frazzled wrote:
Wait you're ticked off because they grabbed a terrorist? They should have Treadstoned him instead.
Terrorist? He was never charged with a crime. He was never convicted of a crime. He, as of right now, is a free man.
Seriously...you went to law school?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Crime is irrelevant. Thats the problem its not the mob, its a war. We didn't try to arrest Yammamoto, we sent a squadron of P-38s to blow his brains out. Catch the difference?
4042
Post by: Da Boss
As usual, when we talk about these things, the disconnect is that you don't require the intelligence agencies to present and proof that someone is a terrorist in court.
I, and others who don't support blanket attacks on "likely suspects" don't agree with that.
Am I misrepresenting you by the way? It took me some time to understand your POV because it is pretty alien to mine.
221
Post by: Frazzled
You're from Ireland right? You don't really think the British just arrested all the IRA guys they found or suspected right?
If I supported blanket attacks most of the Middle East would be radioactive.
3197
Post by: MagickalMemories
Wikipedia wrote:He is a member of al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, an Islamic organisation dedicated to the overthrow of the Egyptian government. The group has been linked to the murder of Anwar Sadat in 1981 and a terrorist campaign in the 1990s that culminated in the November 1997 Luxor massacre. As a result it is considered a terrorist organization by the United States and European Union. After the Egyptians declared the group illegal, Nasr sought asylum in Italy.
He is a voluntary member of a known terrorist organization.
His abduction does not bother me.
His allegations of torture are substantiated how?
8471
Post by: olympia
Frazzled wrote:You're from Ireland right? You don't really think the British just arrested all the IRA guys they found or suspected right?
If I supported blanket attacks most of the Middle East would be radioactive.
This is confused and confusing.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Translation of whiny butt comments:
He's a human being and has rights. You're just being an evil American fascist. Frankly the world was a paradise until you and the US came along and spoiled everything. You guys suck. Not us. We're enlightened because we've been at peace while US troops, tanks, and money kept the wolf at bay. We've never done anything like you guys did ever. What? whats a text book?
EDIT: I'll let you call me evil now and feel better about yourself.
8471
Post by: olympia
Well frazzled you are either incapable of a rational discussion or you wish to avoid one.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Says the guy with Guinness as his avatar?
Because I disagree with you I'm clearly irrational, so I'll choose A.
8471
Post by: olympia
MagickalMemories wrote:Wikipedia wrote:He is a member of al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, an Islamic organisation dedicated to the overthrow of the Egyptian government. The group has been linked to the murder of Anwar Sadat in 1981 and a terrorist campaign in the 1990s that culminated in the November 1997 Luxor massacre. As a result it is considered a terrorist organization by the United States and European Union. After the Egyptians declared the group illegal, Nasr sought asylum in Italy.
He is a voluntary member of a known terrorist organization.
His abduction does not bother me.
His allegations of torture are substantiated how?
Mubarak is, of course, a dictator. I suspect that majority of Egyptians would support his overthrow through free elections, or barring those, the use of violence. Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote:Says the guy with Guinness as his avatar?
Because I disagree with you I'm clearly irrational, so I'll choose A.
The fact that you disagree with me only makes you wrong, not necessarily irrational. It's the weird rants about nuking the middle east and the IRA that throw me.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Frazzled wrote:You're from Ireland right? You don't really think the British just arrested all the IRA guys they found or suspected right?
If I supported blanket attacks most of the Middle East would be radioactive.
I'm not sure what your first comment means.
When I said blanket attacks, what I meant was that you think it's okay for anyone suspected to be dealt with outside of the normal legal process. Do you believe that? That sort of thing makes me very uneasy, and I'm suprised someone as distrustful of government as you are is okay with it.
Translation of whiny butt comments:
He's a human being and has rights. You're just being an evil American fascist. Frankly the world was a paradise until you and the US came along and spoiled everything. You guys suck. Not us. We're enlightened because we've been at peace while US troops, tanks, and money kept the wolf at bay. We've never done anything like you guys did ever. What? whats a text book?
EDIT: I'll let you call me evil now and feel better about yourself.
I haven't called you evil. I think in this post you're being too defensive. This doesn't have anything to do with them being american, it has to do with them acting outside the legal system. Notice, I didn't say "americans are up to something shady", governments all over the world get up to this sort of stuff all the time.
I've never claimed enlightenment, just a different point of view. Nor have I ever claimed the world was a paradise.
I find that whole translation really insulting, in the context of this thread.
When you post things like this, you make yourself look foolish and intolerant, I think. Of course, you may think the same of me, a lot of the time.
221
Post by: Frazzled
I've been told I'm foaming at the mouth again, which is true. Moving on. In the immortal words of Forrest Gump "Sorry for interrupting your Black Panther Party"
(The above pic is almost avatar worthy.  )
7690
Post by: utan
Horatio Jackson: Ah, the officer who risked his life by singlehandedly destroying...
Functionary: [whispering in his ear] Six.
Horatio Jackson: *Six* enemy cannon and rescuing...
Functionary: Ten.
Horatio Jackson: Ten of our men held captive by The Turk.
Heroic Officer: Yes, sir.
Horatio Jackson: The officer about whom we've heard so much.
Heroic Officer: I suppose so, sir.
Horatio Jackson: Always taking risks far beyond the call of duty.
Heroic Officer: I only did my best, sir.
Horatio Jackson: Have him executed at once.
Soldier: Yes, sir. Come along.
Horatio Jackson: This sort of behavior is demoralizing for the ordinary soldiers and citizens who are trying to lead normal, simple, unexceptional lives. I think things are difficult enough as it is without these emotional people rocking the boat.
3197
Post by: MagickalMemories
Nevermind.
Not worth the effort.
16840
Post by: Altered_Soul
Intelligence agencies, from every country, break the law simply by existing in a foreign sovereignty. It's their job... and they know the risk of prosecution, or worse.
Also, for everyone pointing out the two Italian's that were charged, most likely were US accomplices as contacts, not Italian operations. Just as likely they are and Italy is politically covering their involvement, who knows?
I would wholly expect us to prosecute Italian agents if they had abducted nationals or other locals to partake in their intelligence operations, and any American's who who involved.
Also, Olympia, Frazz is just saying that IF he believed in certain elements that you are accusing him of, and he had the power to do so, then the Middle East would be a glass bowl by now.
752
Post by: Polonius
What Frazz is trying to say, and failing at because he's actually barely literate due to dementia and laudenum addiction, is that efforts against terrorism and terrorists aren't legal criminal actions, they're matters of state security. The reason for this is that they're not citizens, generally not residents, and are members of organizations whose stated goal is to attack america, or it's allies.
Now, as a liberal myself, I'm concerned that the power to label a person a terrorist and then deny him certain basic rights is troubling. As a realist, I know that allowing active members of organizations that are essentially at war with the US is dangerous. It's a tight balance, and one that I'm not sure about, but it's far more nuanced than pretty much anybody in this thread is making it out to be.
One of the aspects in the war on terror that IMO the US has failed to play up is that it is a true war, in the sense that there are groups that have declared war on us, they have fighting units and governments, and just because they aren't states doesn't mean we can't treat a known fighter for a cell like a soldier for an enemy nation.
I'm not horribly interested in an "america sucks/america is awesome" pissing match, but the unspoken agreement amongst all industrialized nations is that the US does the dirty work, with the UK as a wingman. The US really is the world's policeman, and the real world isn't black and white. While I don't agree with many of the US's actions, they're generally better thought out than many think, and with more tacit approval than people think.
Look at the UN history to see how many times they said "somebody should do something about Iraq." I opposed the Iraq war, but nobody is going to convince me that we were as unilateral as many would believe.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Polonius wrote:What Frazz is trying to say, and failing at because he's actually barely literate due to dementia and laudenum addiction
Dude can I sig that?
752
Post by: Polonius
Feel free.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
olympia wrote:Mubarak is, of course, a dictator. I suspect that majority of Egyptians would support his overthrow through free elections, or barring those, the use of violence.
Don't they have pharaohs?
utan wrote:Horatio Jackson: Ah, the officer who risked his life by singlehandedly destroying...
Functionary: [whispering in his ear] Six.
Horatio Jackson: *Six* enemy cannon and rescuing...
Functionary: Ten.
Horatio Jackson: Ten of our men held captive by The Turk.
Heroic Officer: Yes, sir.
Horatio Jackson: The officer about whom we've heard so much.
Heroic Officer: I suppose so, sir.
Horatio Jackson: Always taking risks far beyond the call of duty.
Heroic Officer: I only did my best, sir.
Horatio Jackson: Have him executed at once.
Soldier: Yes, sir. Come along.
Horatio Jackson: This sort of behavior is demoralizing for the ordinary soldiers and citizens who are trying to lead normal, simple, unexceptional lives. I think things are difficult enough as it is without these emotional people rocking the boat.
I don't remember that episode of CSI.
Polonius wrote:One of the aspects in the war on terror that IMO the US has failed to play up is that it is a true war, in the sense that there are groups that have declared war on us, they have fighting units and governments, and just because they aren't states doesn't mean we can't treat a known fighter for a cell like a soldier for an enemy nation.
I think having previously declared wars on poverty and drugs didn't help.
5470
Post by: sebster
Frazzled wrote:Crime is irrelevant. Thats the problem its not the mob, its a war. We didn't try to arrest Yammamoto, we sent a squadron of P-38s to blow his brains out. Catch the difference?
Government must be kept as small as possible. This is because government is inefficient and full of incompetence. Unless you're talking about the police or an intelligence service accusing someone of a crime, then suddenly government is infallible and there's no need for trial or any of that other due process malarky.
The mind of the rightwinger is an amazing place. I once downed a full jar of peyote and for a second I was one with Ayn Rand, but it wasn't for a second and then I was stuck back in the real world, once again having to deal with logic and reason.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
As a Brit I have to remember that our MI5 shot dead three unarmed IRA guys in Gibraltar (Death On The Rock,) and our anti-terrorist police shot dead an unarmed Brazilian student who had no terrorist connections, in a tube station, and a bloke walking home from the pub with a chair leg.
What this says to me is you have to keep a strict eye on how your security forces operate.
5470
Post by: sebster
Polonius wrote:One of the aspects in the war on terror that IMO the US has failed to play up is that it is a true war, in the sense that there are groups that have declared war on us, they have fighting units and governments, and just because they aren't states doesn't mean we can't treat a known fighter for a cell like a soldier for an enemy nation.
They could have arrested him, though, instead of taking him to a third location to be tortured.
I'm not horribly interested in an "america sucks/america is awesome" pissing match, but the unspoken agreement amongst all industrialized nations is that the US does the dirty work, with the UK as a wingman.
Sort of. In this case of the renditions multiple countries have been involved, most notably the Italians and the Germans.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
The student shooting, however, wasn't that ruled a justifiable circumstance?
And as for the CIA policies...
It's time for a change. Not with CIA policy, but with international law. The world has changed since the Geneva Conventions went through, and we're abiding by them--to the best of our ability when dealing with groups that don't abide by ANY rules.
221
Post by: Frazzled
We've not violated any Geneva Accords. by those accords all those Gitmo guys could have been shot as they weren't wearing uniforms and representing sovereign states.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Kanluwen wrote:The student shooting, however, wasn't that ruled a justifiable circumstance?
Sort of, but the enquiry did so under strange circumstances, and the general public believe there was a police cover up.
For example, a lot of relevant police records (radio traffic recordings and transcripts) were 'lost' or 'accidentally wiped' before they could be presented in evidence. Also, several witnesses -- members of the public -- contradict the police evidence.
Kanluwen wrote:
And as for the CIA policies...
It's time for a change. Not with CIA policy, but with international law. The world has changed since the Geneva Conventions went through, and we're abiding by them--to the best of our ability when dealing with groups that don't abide by ANY rules.
Surely this thread is about which bits of existing law and human rights we do or don't abide by ATM. On the one side you have the Americans saying it's wrong to try the CIA guys in absentia because it would violate their human rights. (This is also the case under UK law.) On the other side, you have the liberals saying it violated the guy in Italy's rights to be effectively kidnapped on suspicion of terrorist links.
We know that there are people out to get us and destroy aspects of our civilisation they don't like. We know they are hard to fight because if you tried to arraign the guy in Italy before a tribunal for extradition on suspicion of being a terrorist he would just run away and hide. However, a policy that security agents are allowed to grab people on suspicion and hold them indefinitely without trial, is also disturbing. It's exactly the kind of thing Stalin used to do.
We should be careful not to destroy our own civilisation and human rights by chucking habeus corpus and everything out of the window.
If we don't want to treat terrorists as either common criminals or prisoners of war, there needs to be a category of prisoner in between POW and common criminal. However all human rights can't be stripped from them because we would lose moral legitimacy over our enemies.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Kilkrazy wrote:
If we don't want to treat terrorists as either common criminals or prisoners of war, there needs to be a category of prisoner in between POW and common criminal. However all human rights can't be stripped from them because we would lose moral legitimacy over our enemies.
Hear hear, well said.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
But then it raises another issue:
Why the hell should we treat people who use the population as a shield, have no qualms with killing innocents to prove that their group is still a threat, and use all manner of tactics to AVOID open combat...as combatants of any sort?
They're operating as a partisan/guerilla force. That's all they have EVER done. They're anarchists at worst, guerillas at best.
And in regards to a category of prisoner between POW and common criminal?
Again--why legitimize them by giving them rights? It will only encourage more groups of the same to crop up.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Kanluwen wrote:But then it raises another issue:
Why the hell should we treat people who use the population as a shield, have no qualms with killing innocents to prove that their group is still a threat, and use all manner of tactics to AVOID open combat...as combatants of any sort?
They're operating as a partisan/guerilla force. That's all they have EVER done. They're anarchists at worst, guerillas at best.
And in regards to a category of prisoner between POW and common criminal?
Again--why legitimize them by giving them rights? It will only encourage more groups of the same to crop up.
Exactly. These people kill children.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Frazzled wrote:Kanluwen wrote:But then it raises another issue:
Why the hell should we treat people who use the population as a shield, have no qualms with killing innocents to prove that their group is still a threat, and use all manner of tactics to AVOID open combat...as combatants of any sort?
They're operating as a partisan/guerilla force. That's all they have EVER done. They're anarchists at worst, guerillas at best.
And in regards to a category of prisoner between POW and common criminal?
Again--why legitimize them by giving them rights? It will only encourage more groups of the same to crop up.
Exactly. These people kill children.
Actually the guy we captured didn't. He was tried, unconvicted, and released after being shipped around the world and tortured in god damn dungeons. Thats the problem. You scream and go in guns blazing and all you do is fail and feth up on television giving Al jazeera something to play on loop and helping to recruit another 2200 members of Hamas, 3,752 members of the Taliban, 547 members of Al Queda, and Achmadinejad gets a few more votes. You're ideas have failed, these policies don't and didn't work. The "War on terror" has strengthened every international terrorist organization in the middleast. All you've done is given them a better target and alienated us from the disenfranchised and oppressed populaces that they recruit from. When you act like that all you do is screw yourself over. You don't fight violent anti western extremism by DOING THE GOD DAMN THINGS THEY CLAIM WE DO. Thats like fighting a housefire by covering your home in gasoline. The worst part about it is that we lose all moral highground when you advocate things like this. Especially when you seem so intentionally ignorant and jingoistic about the whole affair simply for the sole purpose of not fixing the problem, but for the purpose of seeming strong. Again--why legitimize them by giving them rights? It will only encourage more groups of the same to crop up.
Thats the most bunk load of gak I've heard today. It'll probably be the keeper of the day too. I doubt I'll hear something less logical before midnight.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Kanluwen wrote: It will only encourage more groups of the same to crop up.
Why would it ? We're not doing that at the moment and more and more of these groups are cropping up ..so the current "thinking" isn't really working.
have no qualms with killing innocents to prove that their group is still a threat
.. well hat also includes pretty much every nation and a good 50% of the posters on here..apparently.
and use all manner of tactics to AVOID open combat.....They're operating as a partisan/guerilla force. That's all they have EVER done.
..and ? They use tactics ! How unsporting of them ! It's clearly more right to bomb them from 32,000 feet or use remote controlled drones..errr... ?
They're anarchists at worst, guerillas at best.
hmm... I'd say more religious fanatic than anarchist but..I get what you're saying.
To be honest you answered your own question in the first few lines:
Why the hell should we treat people
..because that's what they are, ultimately. It's our ability to acknowledge and act upon this that makes us the "good guys" here.
7690
Post by: utan
Human rights?
Folks I hate to spoil your fun, but... there's no such thing as rights. They're imaginary. We made 'em up. Like the boogie man. Like Three Little Pigs, Pinocio, Mother Goose, sh!t like that. Rights are an idea. They're just imaginary. They're a cute idea. Cute. But that's all. Cute...and fictional. - Carlin
5394
Post by: reds8n
utan wrote:Human rights?
Folks I hate to spoil your fun, but... there's no such thing as rights. They're imaginary. We made 'em up. Like the boogie man. Like Three Little Pigs, Pinocio, Mother Goose, sh!t like that. Rights are an idea. They're just imaginary. They're a cute idea. Cute. But that's all. Cute...and fictional. - Carlin
..and ? So what ? We've made up lots of things, that fact that "we" have made them doesn't automatically mean they are worthless, even if the only worth they have is what we give them.
We make up countries, rights, ideals, religi...errr... let's not go there actually ( OT board regulars' J O K E there folks, fret not ! ) and all manner of things, doens't mean they aren't worth fighting for.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
utan wrote:Human rights?
Folks I hate to spoil your fun, but... there's no such thing as rights. They're imaginary. We made 'em up. Like the boogie man. Like Three Little Pigs, Pinocio, Mother Goose, sh!t like that. Rights are an idea. They're just imaginary. They're a cute idea. Cute. But that's all. Cute...and fictional. - Carlin
Whelp, looks like I spoke to soon. This little diamond in the rough that-could-only-be-posted-by-a-14-year-old takes the prize for worst thing I've heard today.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Sorry, but anyone who straps a bomb on and blows themselves up in a school in THEIR OWN COUNTRY while yelling "Death to America"?
Not a person.
And actually, if you go and look there have been since 9/11, a huge surge in Islamic extremist group activities, especially in those with ties to Al-Qaeda. The upswings tend towards when Al-Qaeda makes some kind of "political" stance, or a suspected terrorist gets a walk from some simp in a foreign government.
Admittedly, they've all been rather small and don't do too much--but they are groups who Al-Qaeda then recruits from. Add in the fact that most of those groups attract members who had been fighting from the 1970s/80s and have been in a state of constant action against the governments of their "homelands" and you get a batch of hardened guerillas who have no qualms with using the "tactic" of hiding their asses in a civilian population and using force to press the civilians into aiding them with shelter, hiding places, supplies, etc.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Good point. Automatically Appended Next Post: ShumaGorath wrote:utan wrote:Human rights?
Folks I hate to spoil your fun, but... there's no such thing as rights. They're imaginary. We made 'em up. Like the boogie man. Like Three Little Pigs, Pinocio, Mother Goose, sh!t like that. Rights are an idea. They're just imaginary. They're a cute idea. Cute. But that's all. Cute...and fictional. - Carlin
Whelp, looks like I spoke to soon. This little diamond in the rough that-could-only-be-posted-by-a-14-year-old takes the prize for worst thing I've heard today.
Until you started posting of course.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Kanluwen wrote:And actually, if you go and look there have been since 9/11, a huge surge in Islamic extremist group activities, especially in those with ties to Al-Qaeda. The upswings tend towards when Al-Qaeda makes some kind of "political" stance, or a suspected terrorist gets a walk from some simp in a foreign government.
Or when a country gets invaded for no reason, or when people discover that prisoners have been stripped naked and abused for the sadistic amusement of their guards or etc etc
Admittedly, they've all been rather small and don't do too much--but they are groups who Al-Qaeda then recruits from. Add in the fact that most of those groups attract members who had been fighting from the 1970s/80s and have been in a state of constant action against the governments of their "homelands" and you get a batch of hardened guerillas who have no qualms with using the "tactic" of hiding their asses in a civilian population and using force to press the civilians into aiding them with shelter, hiding places, supplies, etc.
and which Govts. spent many years funding these Afghani "freedom fighters" and training them how to do this again ? Oh.. that's be ours wouldn't it ?
722
Post by: Kanluwen
reds8n wrote:Kanluwen wrote:And actually, if you go and look there have been since 9/11, a huge surge in Islamic extremist group activities, especially in those with ties to Al-Qaeda. The upswings tend towards when Al-Qaeda makes some kind of "political" stance, or a suspected terrorist gets a walk from some simp in a foreign government.
Or when a country gets invaded for no reason, or when people discover that prisoners have been stripped naked and abused for the sadistic amusement of their guards or etc etc
Or when the country that has been invaded has flouted international law repeatedly, nobody said jack other than "Don't do that", and then was found to be funneling weapons and funding to fighters in a currently occupied country.
Yep. Nothing like THAT ever happened in Afghanistan/Iraq.
And as for the prisoners? Hey guess what.
NO RIGHTS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW.
Not a single goddamned right, whatsoever. No uniforms, no sovereign army. Our troops could have(and should have) shot them in the head rather than accepting their surrenders.
reds8n wrote:
Admittedly, they've all been rather small and don't do too much--but they are groups who Al-Qaeda then recruits from. Add in the fact that most of those groups attract members who had been fighting from the 1970s/80s and have been in a state of constant action against the governments of their "homelands" and you get a batch of hardened guerillas who have no qualms with using the "tactic" of hiding their asses in a civilian population and using force to press the civilians into aiding them with shelter, hiding places, supplies, etc.
and which Govts. spent many years funding these Afghani "freedom fighters" and training them how to do this again ? Oh.. that's be ours wouldn't it ?
Yep. We messed up helping to train the Taliban. But, the Taliban was a legitimate force...and was, until the downfall of the government they had installed. Now they're nothing but a pathetic off-shoot tied into Al-Qaeda. You'd know this if you weren't so obsessively focusing on "freedom fighters".
221
Post by: Frazzled
Redy you and I might step back out of this discussion so we can mod if needed. We've stirred the pot to a nice boil. Yes!
7690
Post by: utan
ShumaGorath wrote:Whelp, looks like I spoke to soon. This little diamond in the rough that-could-only-be-posted-by-a-14-year-old takes the prize for worst thing I've heard today.
A fallacious ad hominem attack.
I assure you, at the time of the quoted statement George Carlin was not 14 years of age and neither am I.
The statement is true.
It matters to the discussion because everyone thinks they are entitled to all sorts of incompatible "rights". When you argue these against each other as if your own perceived "rights" are indisputable. We have once again a "holy war" thread that will merely degenerate into lockdown. Again.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Or when the country that has been invaded has flouted international law repeatedly, nobody said jack other than "Don't do that", and then was found to be funneling weapons and funding to fighters in a currently occupied country.
Why are you bringing America into this..oh, sorry...
Nobody said jack..really..Hmm... other than the international blockades that history and events have since shown were working and preventing Saddam from equipping or building anything like a successful army and/or building WMDs. No we didn't do anything, but even if we hadn't the situation you describe is now.....drum roll.. exactly the same as you describe, only much worse and with thousands of dead and wounded. RESULT !
See, I can use the capslock button too !
Yep. We messed up helping to train the Taliban.
Agreed.
But, the Taliban was a legitimate force
No they were and are monstrous thugs who we should have been against from the start...not sat back and given tacit approval to.
Perhaps you'd know this if you tried applying a bit more logic and thougts to your arguments.
Still it answers one question : When is a freedom figter not a freedom fighter : when they no longer suit the interests of our Govts. it seems.
Redy you and I might step back out of this discussion so we can mod if needed. We've stirred the pot to a nice boil. Yes!
bah, back to the coal face... to the banning list ! *
*nO, NOT REALLY. chill !
722
Post by: Kanluwen
The international blockades weren't doing gak. He was still trying to work on chemical weapons, as always. The WMDs approach was the wrong one, and it was done under terrible intelligence.
HOWEVER it does not stop the fact that Saddam and his regime were funneling weapons, equipment, training, and funding to Al-Qaeda fighters.
And if you want to start talking about cock-ups, guess what?
What country invented the concentration camp?
Protip: Not Germany. And not even in your own home country, but an occupied colony *cough* South Africa *cough*.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Modquisition on.
OK ok
1. I stepping out of the thread. I apologize for myself being foamy at the mouth.
2. Now that my conscious is clean (well when you have no soul thats really not an issue) lets ALL STEP BACK and tone it down now, myself included.
241
Post by: Ahtman
ShumaGorath wrote:utan wrote:Human rights?
Folks I hate to spoil your fun, but... there's no such thing as rights. They're imaginary. We made 'em up. Like the boogie man. Like Three Little Pigs, Pinocio, Mother Goose, sh!t like that. Rights are an idea. They're just imaginary. They're a cute idea. Cute. But that's all. Cute...and fictional. - Carlin
Whelp, looks like I spoke to soon. This little diamond in the rough that-could-only-be-posted-by-a-14-year-old takes the prize for worst thing I've heard today.
George Carlin isn't a 14 year old. He also wasn't wrong either. They are only abstract ideas. Useful ones that allow us to function together in a world with so many people. The right to universal healthcare won't fix a busted leg out in the wilderness any more than the right to bear arms will magically give you a firearm to protect yourself in said woods. You can't buy and sell rights. you can't touch them or taste them. There isn't a single working definition of what it means, as they can mean something different to different people. We constantly debate them and go to court over them. A right won't keep you warm in the winter or plant a garden to feed you. It can motivate people to set up programs that keep the heat on and find ways of making food cheaper. Rights, the way they are presented today, is still a fairly modern concept that basically set up rules for governing large amounts of people. It helps us get along by setting the basic superstructure of what we will put up with. But they won't  you in the with a and a whilst atop a unicycle. It is also why they are so fragile. Look at the Bush administration. They curtailed rights in the name of rights and it isn't as if they only had 4 people thinking they were doing the right thing. We could find that in any European country as well, like say the BNP.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Oh man, now Ahtman has gone 'deep' on us. Next Dogma will post equally deeply and I'll have to go find the "what does this smell like" thread to get back to my level.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Frazzled, could you PM me what you meant about the IRA? I'm still confused.
Also, I am still at a loss as to how someone so distrustful of the government they think they need guns to fight them off could be happy with government agencies behaving in this way.I'd be interested to hear your views, over PM. If it's not too much hassle. Don't worry if it's a chore.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Stepping myself out of here before I say something ridiculous/out of line.
Terrorists and how they should be treated are a touchy subject for me. I've lost a few family friends who joined the military following 9/11, and a family member in the attack itself. So I'm a bit skewed on my views, I'll freely admit that.
Anyways, I'm gonna step out and go back to "work."
241
Post by: Ahtman
Frazzled wrote:Oh man, now Ahtman has gone 'deep' on us. Next Dogma will post equally deeply and I'll have to go find the " what does this smell like" thread to get back to my level.
How did I miss this? Why wasn't I told?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Its in a special OT subdirectory Ahtman.
"OT For Dummies" (or how I stopped worrying and learned to love finger paints)
5394
Post by: reds8n
Kanluwen wrote:
What country invented the concentration camp?
Protip: Not Germany. And not even in your own home country, but an occupied colony *cough* South Africa *cough*.
//and this is relevant because ? Oh, it isn't, as I'm not arguing for this failed policy..are you confusing us perhaps ?
The international blockades weren't doing gak.
No, they were doing alright..as the pitiful state of his army showed. And the many deaths of Iraqi children and sick as the regime's infrastructure collapsed, depending upon which reports you read.
He was still trying to work on chemical weapons, as always.
And failing.
The WMDs approach was the wrong one, and it was done under terrible intelligence.
More or less agreed.
HOWEVER it does not stop the fact that Saddam and his regime were funneling weapons, equipment, training, and funding to Al-Qaeda fighters.
err... no. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
Aside from a mutual enemy ( us western devils with oour decadent lifestyles and so forth) they had very little in common. Iraq was a secular regime and many women held important positions of power, especially in areas like sciences and so forth, women could drive, go out ont ehri own, wear trousers etc etc Hardline Muslim extremists tend not to big on that.
I've lost a few family friends who joined the military following 9/11, and a family member in the attack itself. So I'm a bit skewed on my views, I'll freely admit that.
I'm very sorry to hear that. It's a hard subject to try to stay objective about, especially in those circumstances I'd imagine.
Still... who knew Italy even had a secret service eh ? 
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
"Folks I hate to spoil your fun, but... there's no such thing as The Constitution and the Bill Of Rights. They're imaginary. We made 'em up. Like the boogie man. Like Three Little Pigs, Pinocio, Mother Goose, sh!t like that. Rights are an idea. They're just imaginary. They're a cute idea. Cute. But that's all. Cute...and fictional."
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Ahtman wrote:ShumaGorath wrote:utan wrote:Human rights?
Folks I hate to spoil your fun, but... there's no such thing as rights. They're imaginary. We made 'em up. Like the boogie man. Like Three Little Pigs, Pinocio, Mother Goose, sh!t like that. Rights are an idea. They're just imaginary. They're a cute idea. Cute. But that's all. Cute...and fictional. - Carlin
Whelp, looks like I spoke to soon. This little diamond in the rough that-could-only-be-posted-by-a-14-year-old takes the prize for worst thing I've heard today.
George Carlin isn't a 14 year old. He also wasn't wrong either. They are only abstract ideas. Useful ones that allow us to function together in a world with so many people. The right to universal healthcare won't fix a busted leg out in the wilderness any more than the right to bear arms will magically give you a firearm to protect yourself in said woods. You can't buy and sell rights. you can't touch them or taste them. There isn't a single working definition of what it means, as they can mean something different to different people. We constantly debate them and go to court over them. A right won't keep you warm in the winter or plant a garden to feed you. It can motivate people to set up programs that keep the heat on and find ways of making food cheaper. Rights, the way they are presented today, is still a fairly modern concept that basically set up rules for governing large amounts of people. It helps us get along by setting the basic superstructure of what we will put up with. But they won't you in the with a and a whilst atop a unicycle. It is also why they are so fragile. Look at the Bush administration. They curtailed rights in the name of rights and it isn't as if they only had 4 people thinking they were doing the right thing. We could find that in any European country as well, like say the BNP.
And yet the statement still had no relevance to the topic at hand and was at best a pandering attempt at (bad) humor or at worst tacit approval of methods of torture and abuse "because rights don't exist". Numbers don't exist either. Nor do seasons, countries, streets, brands, or words. His quote was not an attempt at deriving a common view of immaterial social matters, and one could not have come from it regardless.
The statement is true.
It matters to the discussion because everyone thinks they are entitled to all sorts of incompatible "rights". When you argue these against each other as if your own perceived "rights" are indisputable. We have once again a "holy war" thread that will merely degenerate into lockdown. Again.
No, the statement is irrelevant. Terrorists have one of two sets of rights, the first being those of a suspected international civilian criminal, the second being of an enemy combatant. Whether or not "rights" exist makes no difference at all. A national border doesn't "exist" but the ones we have set have had more of an impact on history and humankind than any single "material" existence in history. The rights "exist" far moreso than you or I. More people know of them, they effect more lives, they produce more good, they do more harm. They are in every way more important and material than you're small collection of shortly coherent atoms. To say that they don't have rights ignores international accord, treaties, the constitution of america itself, and a whole host of other "immaterial" things that are more well known and felt than any material existence.
And if you want to start talking about cock-ups, guess what?
What country invented the concentration camp?
Protip: Not Germany. And not even in your own home country, but an occupied colony *cough* South Africa *cough*.
Actually the form of the concentration camp has a pretty long history that stretches back for many periods of human history. To lay claim over its invention to a nation is a bit silly.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Actually The Taliban and the Mujihadin are two seperate things. There are former Mujihadin in both the taliban and the Afghan government. The CIA didn't train the taliban, they trained the mujihadin to fight the russians.
@Ahtman - I was merely rebuking the poster (cane, IIRC) who implied that kidnapping terror SUSPECTS (key word) and shipping them to CIA dungeons for 'Deep Interrogation' (torture, to you and I...) was acceptable because it is in the interest of the USA. Don't give yourself an ulcer, man! I am fully aware that several nations are party to this horrific state of affairs. Britain plays a large part in this - we did similar things in Northern Ireland (kidnap, torture, summary execution), allegedly. I find this despicable and would react the same way towards a Brit who said something that crass.
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:We've not violated any Geneva Accords. by those accords all those Gitmo guys could have been shot as they weren't wearing uniforms and representing sovereign states.
According to the Geneva Conventions we aren't at war anyway, as the Geneva Conventions only consider 'war' to be something between sovereign states.
In any case, even if we were at war, the Conventions stipulate that any prisoner must still be prosecuted under the law of the detaining state.
Either we aren't at war, and therefore the Geneva Conventions do not apply at all, or we are at war, and the Geneva Conventions have clearly been violated. Neither argument plays out well for the United States. Hence the Bush Administration's running shell-game with respect to the legality of the allegations against them. So very stupid as the only thing we really need to do is establish a domestic legal convention under which non-lawful combatants can be tried.
Frazzled wrote:Exactly. These people kill children.
Wait, why haven't we executed all those Vietnam vets who dropped napalm on villages full of children? Automatically Appended Next Post: Kanluwen wrote:Sorry, but anyone who straps a bomb on and blows themselves up in a school in THEIR OWN COUNTRY while yelling "Death to America"?
Not a person.
Nope, still a person. Unless you're going to differentiate between 'person' and 'human'. Though I sincerely doubt you put that much reason into your comment.
8471
Post by: olympia
sebster wrote:Polonius wrote:One of the aspects in the war on terror that IMO the US has failed to play up is that it is a true war, in the sense that there are groups that have declared war on us, they have fighting units and governments, and just because they aren't states doesn't mean we can't treat a known fighter for a cell like a soldier for an enemy nation.
They could have arrested him, though, instead of taking him to a third location to be tortured.
Excellent point sebster. Polonius there are many of your fellow 'realists' who argue that torture, guantanamo, rendition, and blind support for Israel are not policies that further the interests of the United States in either the short or long term.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Numbers don't exist either.
Actually they do. Now the terms we use for them is abstract (one, ichi, uno, ect) but you actually can hold a thing or things. Even if you don't call it two, one can see the difference between holding one apple and holding dos manzana. Much like apple is an abstract term but the thing wich we call apple is real.
Nor do seasons
Those do as well. Now they don't follow strictly by the calendar we have set up but it an easily observable phenomena. Ever our non science having, fire worshiping ancestors noticed that there is a consistent cycle of weather based on geographic location. Rain actually falls on your head, snow actually builds up on the ground.
I could go on all day for each of these you mentioned. In essence you are trying to argue something other than the discussion in the framework. You are arguing about confusing the signifier with the signified. We know words are arbitrary and abstract. We also know they have impact, but that doesn't change knowledge that they are arbitrary and abstract. Like ideas, they don't exist but they have an impact. Streets, seasons, and brands do actually exist. Coka-cola is a real company. Pennsylvania Ave is a place. you can write letters and they don't disappear into the ether. I can point to a sign and touch it. Countries are real but are fluid concepts, which is not the same as not existing. Even things we can't see exist, so it isn't about the senses. We can measure atoms. We can measure sound waves. You can't measure an idea.
752
Post by: Polonius
I wouldn't say that human rights are a myth, I'd say that the idea that human rights can be granted is a bit of a fallacy. Teh rights American's have aren't granted by the government, they were withheld by the people when the government was founded. The counsitition is a contract between the government and the people. Of course, this is a contract you can only sue on in the court of civil war, but it's still a contract. The government gets certain things (the power to tax and govern in certain areas) while the people get certain things (security and rule of law), with certain things neither side can do.
If the NRA is right about anything, it's right about the idea that at the very end of the line, the only thing governments are scared of is armed rebellion by the people.
What does this have to do with anything? It's that in areas of foreign policy, there's a conflict, between the obligation of a nation to protect it's citizens and it's need to act within the boundaries set by those citizens. The boundaries are looser in national security issues, and certainly when involving foreign nationals abroad.
Now, I have little problem with reducing the burden of proof for national security issues. Meaning, if you can show that a person is an operative by preponderance of evidence, and that the group he's an operative for is a legit threat, I say that's enough to be taken.
I'm not an expert on international law, but haven't spies and sabateurs always been without any rights if captured?
241
Post by: Ahtman
olympia wrote:Excellent point sebster. Polonius there are many of your fellow 'realists' who argue that torture, guantanamo, rendition, and blind support for Israel are not policies that further the interests of the United States in either the short or long term.
I'm sorry, who brought Israel up in this thread? I know Polonius didn't. No one has mentioned Isreal at all so why bring it up? And to do so by putting it next to torture and rendition? Trying to muddy the water a bit maybe? 
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Actually they do. Now the terms we use for them is abstract (one, ichi, uno, ect) but you actually can hold a thing or things. Even if you don't call it two, one can see the difference between holding one apple and holding dos manzana. Much like apple is an abstract term but the thing wich we call apple is real.
Actually it's a false distinction of separation. Two rocks exist on one planet. Eight planets exist in one solar system. Billions of stars exist in one galaxy. You get where I'm going with this. Numbers are a false granularity that serve only to separate things for an observer to easier categorize them. Without the observer that separation ceases to function. This is specifically for numbers pertaining to counting as well, when utilized for abstract calculations they get even more conceptual.
Those do as well. Now they don't follow strictly by the calendar we have set up but it an easily observable phenomena. Ever our non science having, fire worshiping ancestors noticed that there is a consistent cycle of weather based on geographic location. Rain actually falls on your head, snow actually builds up on the ground.
Those cycles exist. Seasons do not. The seasons are a rough distinction between warming and cooling cycles inherent to the planets journey around the sun, however they, like the numbers, are simply a form of granular distinction that make it easier to interpret dates and future conditions. They do not exist outside of their nature as functions of separation.
I could go on all day for each of these you mentioned. In essence you are trying to argue something other than the discussion in the framework. You are arguing about confusing the signifier with the signified. We know words are arbitrary and abstract. We also know they have impact, but that doesn't change knowledge that they are arbitrary and abstract. Like ideas, they don't exist but they have an impact. Streets, seasons, and brands do actually exist. Coka-cola is a real company. Pennsylvania Ave is a place. you can write letters and they don't disappear into the ether. I can point to a sign and touch it. Countries are real but are fluid concepts, which is not the same as not existing. Even things we can't see exist, so it isn't about the senses. We can measure atoms. We can measure sound waves. You can't measure an idea.
I'm bamboozled that you can somehow state that brands, streets, and letters aren't abstract ideas when each is simply a terminology used to identify something material as something abstract. A street is something cards drive on, but it's also an area of something physical (the land). One part is abstract and immaterial the other is not. Everything I listed is entirely dependent on the existence of an observer that understands the system those things exist in. Just the same as human rights. They are all just as real and immaterial.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Polonius wrote:I wouldn't say that human rights are a myth,
That is good since no one said they were myth. Also didn't say human rights either. Rights in general are pure abstraction. Useful abstraction perhaps but purely imaginary. They only exist under certain conditions and they constantly change depending on the time. Try feeding yourself purely on ideas and see how far it gets you. Eventually you will need food that isn't an abstraction. To steal from Alan Moore, "it's like giving a drowning man a picture of an oxygen molecule". I think the concept of rights is a good one, but that doesn't mean I'm going to mistake a picture of oxygen for actual oxygen.
@Shuma: Tell you what, you bring me a 'right' and I'll try and get a can of Pepsi and we'll see who can locate their object and show to other people first. You are still arguing semantics at best. None of those words you use exist because, as I said, words are arbitrary and abstract. Words are just signifiers. "Season" is just a signifier for a cycle of weather that has been happening almost as long as the Earth has existed. The word for the thing doesn't exist, but what it represents does. Only an idiot would deny there are seasonal changes.
752
Post by: Polonius
olympia wrote:sebster wrote:Polonius wrote:One of the aspects in the war on terror that IMO the US has failed to play up is that it is a true war, in the sense that there are groups that have declared war on us, they have fighting units and governments, and just because they aren't states doesn't mean we can't treat a known fighter for a cell like a soldier for an enemy nation.
They could have arrested him, though, instead of taking him to a third location to be tortured.
Excellent point sebster. Polonius there are many of your fellow 'realists' who argue that torture, guantanamo, rendition, and blind support for Israel are not policies that further the interests of the United States in either the short or long term.
Ok. I'm one of them. I think that torture probably results in little to no effective intel, at a moral cost that's too high. I think that gitmo should be divided into two camps: one holding people awaiting trial, the other holding POWs until there is no more war in Iraq or Afghanistan. I don't think blind support for anything is justifiable, but I know that Israel is an ally and a functioning democracy in a region where we don't have either.
I would like oversight on actions taken in the war on Terror, I really would. I'm chauvinist enough not to trust any other nation, except maybe Britain, for providing oversight that's not horribly political, however. I like the idea of creating some sort of "Grand Jury of Terror" that the CIA can bring evidence to. If it seems likely that they're 1) involved with a terrorist organization, and 2) that organization is a tangible threat, they can be captured, and held as a POW. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ahtman wrote:Polonius wrote:I wouldn't say that human rights are a myth,
That is good since no one said they were myth. Also didn't say human rights either. Rights in general are pure abstraction. Useful abstraction perhaps but purely imaginary. They only exist under certain conditions and they constantly change depending on the time. Try feeding yourself purely on ideas and see how far it gets you. Eventually you will need food that isn't an abstraction. To steal from Alan Moore, "it's like giving a drowning man a picture of an oxygen molecule". I think the concept of rights is a good one, but that doesn't mean I'm going to mistake a picture of oxygen for actual oxygen.
I have no clue what you're talking about. Right are real enough to motivate people. Don't confuse tangibility with reality.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
World War 2
In the UK, German spies were prosecuted under the law. The penalty was death, unlike a soldier who was captured. At the time we had the death penalty for various offences.
http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/spying.htm
In occupied France they were without rights when captured by the Gestapo and were freely tortured and executed.
And that is the point of this whole argument.
5534
Post by: dogma
Kanluwen wrote:
Not a single goddamned right, whatsoever. No uniforms, no sovereign army. Our troops could have(and should have) shot them in the head rather than accepting their surrenders.
Wrong, sorry. The only reason you could believe that is total ignorance of the Geneva Conventions.
Article 5, of the 3rd Geneva Convention wrote:
The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
Article 5, 4th Geneva Convention wrote:
Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State...
note, the above bold references the privileges to be granted to non-combatants, not the privileges to be granted to POWs.
...In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.
Essentially, any given detainee must have their status reviewed by a competent tribunal (this is one rub in many circles, as the tribunals are always military), and even in the event they are determined to be unlawful combatants, must still be treated with humanity, and afforded a fair trial in the event that trial is the goal of the detention.
Kanluwen wrote:
Yep. We messed up helping to train the Taliban. But, the Taliban was a legitimate force...and was, until the downfall of the government they had installed. Now they're nothing but a pathetic off-shoot tied into Al-Qaeda. You'd know this if you weren't so obsessively focusing on "freedom fighters".
Wrong, again. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda are only connected at the most ephemeral level. They have religious beliefs which are wildly divergent, political aims which are not at all connected, and structural features which mark them as a nascent state (in the case of the Taliban) and a transnational funding body (in the case of Al Qaeda).
The Taliban is no different in the present than they were in the '90s. The only difference is that we have taken a vested interest in keeping them out of power because they are completely indifferent to organizations like Al Qaeda.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Actually it's a false distinction of separation. Two rocks exist on one planet. Eight planets exist in one solar system. Billions of stars exist in one galaxy. You get where I'm going with this. Numbers are a false granularity that serve only to separate things for an observer to easier categorize them. Without the observer that separation ceases to function. This is specifically for numbers pertaining to counting as well, when utilized for abstract calculations they get even more conceptual.
Its not a false distinction, but a scalar one. We perceive the eight rocks in our solar system before the solar system itself because they are closer to us in terms of abstraction (rock 2 is like rock 3, which we walk on every day). Its not an absolute measure in the sense that it would exist without our presence, but that's easily hand-waved with an appeal to anthropic principles.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Those cycles exist. Seasons do not. The seasons are a rough distinction between warming and cooling cycles inherent to the planets journey around the sun, however they, like the numbers, are simply a form of granular distinction that make it easier to interpret dates and future conditions. They do not exist outside of their nature as functions of separation.
Yeah, the season is a construct meant to refer to the actual event. The season is a mental object, the event a physical one. The point is that all you're doing is pointing out that there is no reason for our reference devices to correspond to the reality in question other than the fact that we define them by our observations of the world/universe/etc. Its an important point to recall with respect to fallibility, but it doesn't necessarily have relevance when considering purely human associations (rights, laws, etc.).
Polonius wrote:
I'm not an expert on international law, but haven't spies and sabateurs always been without any rights if captured?
They would fall under article 5. Security threat to the detaining party, to be granted "humanity" and a fair trial. Generally this means they would be held under charge of treason.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Polonius wrote:I have no clue what you're talking about. Right are real enough to motivate people. Don't confuse tangibility with reality.
Go back and reread what I wrote. I got a minute I can wait.
Ok, where did I say that the idea had no effect? That it did nothing? Oh, that is right, I didn't say that. I said the opposite. I said it could have an effect, and that it does.
Don't confuse existence with reality. This isn't about reality, but existence. While often thought of as similar, they are not the same thing.
14828
Post by: Cane
It is a sticky situation when dealing with scum like terrorists and social degenerates in general. While torturing, kidnapping, and violating human-made constructs like our concept of rights shouldn't necessarily be condoned it is definitely understandable why government agencies like the CIA employ such tactics. Especially since terrorists and suspected terrorists are hunted and detained by people who likely got injured or lost friends due to terrorists.
But thats the very nature of the business when it comes to organizations like the CIA - they're just not supposed to get caught unless it was part of their plan. Nations like the US of A and the UK engage in daily spec-ops missions that at best would be declassified in a couple of decades. These organizations including the military, police, etc. are necessary for modern nations but like all things can be handled incredibly badly (Bay of Pigs) to really, really badly (Gestapo).
Torturing people shouldn't be condoned but its understandable for agencies like the CIA and makes for really bad press if failures leak out. It is somewhat of a double standard but hey if you want to kill people you can be paid by the government to do it and for some reason I can't help but think of Casino Royale regarding this issue.
5534
Post by: dogma
Cane wrote:Torturing people shouldn't be condoned but its understandable for agencies like the CIA and makes for really bad press if failures leak out. It is somewhat of a double standard but hey if you want to kill people you can be paid by the government to do it and for some reason I can't help but think of Casino Royale regarding this issue.
The internet, and the freedom of information in general, is a worrying thing for most people in the intelligence community as it almost guarantees an increase in the the degree of public awareness.
What this means for the future is either a greater degree of comfort with things like torture, or a greater willingness to punish/prosecute those agents who are caught engaging in those acts. Personally, I prefer the latter option. Both because it allows us to save some degree of face in the public eye, and because it will force any given agency to think long and hard before it uses questionable tactics.
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
Kanluwen wrote:The international blockades weren't doing gak. He was still trying to work on chemical weapons, as always. The WMDs approach was the wrong one, and it was done under terrible intelligence.
HOWEVER it does not stop the fact that Saddam and his regime were funneling weapons, equipment, training, and funding to Al-Qaeda fighters.
And if you want to start talking about cock-ups, guess what?
What country invented the concentration camp?
Protip: Not Germany. And not even in your own home country, but an occupied colony *cough* South Africa *cough*.
Actually the answer is Spain in their Cuban colony. The Nazi concentration camps weren't really concentration camps. The Nazi's used concentration camp as an euphemism to disguise their true use.
The evidence for links between Saddam an Al Qaeda are weak as they were ideologically opposed. The Mujahedeen even offered to fight for the Saudis when Kuwait was invaded.
5534
Post by: dogma
The above is correct. Saddam was an Arabist. Al Qaeda is founded on Islamism. They did not like one another.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Basically, I reckon you catch a spy, you try the spy. One of your operatives gets caught, he gets put on trial too.
That's how I'd like it to work.
I'm aware of all the reasons why it doesn't, obviously.
5470
Post by: sebster
Kanluwen wrote:But then it raises another issue:
Why the hell should we treat people who use the population as a shield, have no qualms with killing innocents to prove that their group is still a threat, and use all manner of tactics to AVOID open combat...as combatants of any sort?
They're operating as a partisan/guerilla force. That's all they have EVER done. They're anarchists at worst, guerillas at best.
Yeah, that's wonderful but don't you want to know they're actually terrorists before you strip their rights away and start torturing them?
Because the only thing that made that guy a terrorist was some intel people saying he was. And you'd have to be aware by now that intel screws up, and they often screw up big time. Remember that Iraq thing? Automatically Appended Next Post: utan wrote:Human rights?
Folks I hate to spoil your fun, but... there's no such thing as rights. They're imaginary. We made 'em up. Like the boogie man. Like Three Little Pigs, Pinocio, Mother Goose, sh!t like that. Rights are an idea. They're just imaginary. They're a cute idea. Cute. But that's all. Cute...and fictional. - Carlin
Property rights are also made up, and yet the whole world is built on trade derived from property rights.
Human rights exist to the extent that we value them. To the extent that we're okay with government kidnapping people and torturing them is the extent to which human rights don't exist.
This whole debate is absurd. There are actually people here talking about how it is alright to kidnap people suspected of crimes and then torturing them. Automatically Appended Next Post: olympia wrote:Excellent point sebster. Polonius there are many of your fellow 'realists' who argue that torture, guantanamo, rendition, and blind support for Israel are not policies that further the interests of the United States in either the short or long term.
It's one of those things, where people claim that they're being realistic, but all they're ultimately doing is supporting cruelty and violence without considering the long term consequences.
It's a very unrealistic way of looking at the world.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Sebster--did I say anywhere, whatsoever, that snatching people off the street off of just one report from some goon who gets offered money to be an informant was a good idea?
No. I didn't.
However, that doesn't change the fact that when there IS intel tying someone to activities, more often than not, we're reduced to pleading with some ridiculous government that won't give them up no matter what--or the person has, by then, been tipped off enough to have fled somewhere and the intel is wasted.
Where's the middleground there?
241
Post by: Ahtman
sebster wrote:It's a very unrealistic way of looking at the world.
Living in delusion isn't a very good way either.
sebster wrote:This whole debate is absurd. There are actually people here talking about how it is alright to kidnap people suspected of crimes and then torturing them.
I like how you say 'crimes' like we are talking about someone swiping a pack of gum, or stealing a car. As if blowing up buildings, weddings, women, and children in a large internationally organized manner is in the same league as standard domestic crime. I'm against torture myself, but I think that is what is absurd.
sebster wrote:Human rights exist to the extent that we value them.
Exactly, which means they have no inherent value. Water doesn't need us to give it value, it has inherent value. A human can exist without the idea, and have, but it can't exist without the water. I'm not against the concept and I think it can do a lot of good but that doesn't mean I'm not going to pretend that it isn't entirely human fabrication. To value something a person needs to understand it (at least that is how I feel) and understanding this truth about these concepts doesn't devalue them, if anything it makes them more important because they need to be nurtured and kept alive. It isn't some eternal concept, it hasn't even been around that long in the big picture of human history. Because they are truly one of the few entirely human creations they are important. Of course, like property rights, it can be abused (ask anyone in South Africa or a Lakota). It is also similiar to property rights in that they mean something different in different places so there isn't some universal definition either.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
All value is a human creation though, isn't it?
Water stops you from dying of thirst, but that doesn't make it valuable unless you desire to not die of thirst.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
I like how you say 'crimes' like we are talking about someone swiping a pack of gum, or stealing a car. As if blowing up buildings, weddings, women, and children in a large internationally organized manner is in the same league as standard domestic crime. I'm against torture myself, but I think that is what is absurd.
What does the nature of the crime have to do with the idea of innocent until proven guilty? For the love of god you're posting in a thread specifically about the fallout after the CIA captured, moved, then oversaw the torture of a man who was later released for being innocent? What kind of brain melting cognitive dissonance is going on here?
14869
Post by: Wrexasaur
Orkeosaurus wrote:All value is a human creation though, isn't it?
Sure, you could look at it that way. All in all though, you are just searching for a more practical term.
Water stops you from dying of thirst, but that doesn't make it valuable unless you desire to not die of thirst.
All living things "desire" water, basically being nonexistent without it, we can safely say that it is inherently valuable.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
It's not valuable to rocks. It wouldn't necessarily be valuable to a hypothetical being that didn't consume water.
It wouldn't be valuable to a person attempting to die of thirst.
14869
Post by: Wrexasaur
You could consider it inherently valuable to life then... not including "hypothetical" (metaphysical) beings.
Nothing isn't anything to rocks though... and you could argue that the rock simply did not exist previous to your awareness of it. In being known, that thing may be taking part in your experience, through your experience; due to a lack of the potential for individual experience of it's own.
Besides... who listens to rocks anyway?
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
Inherently valuable to the preservation of life, I would say. But that's value to the success of an action, not value to an individual, which is sort of a different meaning.
14869
Post by: Wrexasaur
I generally consider life to be a group of individual actions, meaning the value is present to the individual that takes the action. If you cannot see the value, or do not understand the value; that does not entail the lack of it in general.
Inherently valuable to life, is loose enough to encompass the full meaning, without splitting too many hairs. The preservation of life, does not conclude the introduction of life. The function of death, involves life, and you could also say, by that line, the function of non-self preservation is very much in the same, rather gray area.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
Wrexasaur wrote:I generally consider life to be a group of individual actions, meaning the value is present to the individual that takes the action. If you cannot see the value, or do not understand the value; that does not entail the lack of it in general.
Sure, but that's because others can find value in it, or you can find value in it in the future (which would really be the potential of value more than value per se). Inherently valuable to life, is loose enough to encompass the full meaning, without splitting too many hairs.
If you define "life" as all living things, you get back to a person who may desire to die of thirst. If you define "life" as living things in general it would be true but sort of unimportant (since it still doesn't have value to all living things). If "life" is being used a verb - "inherently valuable to living" or "inherently valuable to the processes of life" - then I would agree. The preservation of life, does not conclude the introduction of life. The function of death, involves life, and you could also say, by that line, the function of non-self preservation is very much in the same, rather gray area.
Well, a living person doesn't need water to die, although they did need it to reach the state they're in. Plus, how about something like oil? Valuable, under the colloquial definition, because many people value it and the energy it produces. However, if no one knew how to get any use out of it, it wouldn't be valued any more. In that sense the properties of the thing aren't (necessarily) subjective but whether those properties are useful, or can create desirable results, depends on what a person considers useful or desirable.
14869
Post by: Wrexasaur
Orkeo wrote:If "life" is being used a verb - "inherently valuable to living" or "inherently valuable to the processes of life" - then I would agree.
Touche'
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
Does the winning squirrel go on to fight the winning monkey?
14869
Post by: Wrexasaur
Orkeosaurus wrote:Does the winning squirrel go on to fight the winning monkey?
No... there is no winner in that fight... and it is eternal.
5534
Post by: dogma
Orkeosaurus wrote:If "life" is being used a verb - "inherently valuable to living" or "inherently valuable to the processes of life" - then I would agree.
So, inherently valuable in the event that a being is both alive, and wishes to remain so?
I don't think you're trying attribute value creation to an ancillary process (though there might be something in that), but I'm not certain of that based on your wording.
5470
Post by: sebster
Kanluwen wrote:Sebster--did I say anywhere, whatsoever, that snatching people off the street off of just one report from some goon who gets offered money to be an informant was a good idea?
No. I didn't.
One report or ten reports, what does it matter? Either way you're still abducting people on the say-so of intel, with no judicial oversight. No matter how scary a guy might be, that's a really dangerous power to give to government.
So are you actually saying that you're alright with grabbing suspected people and having them taken to secret locations to be tortured?
However, that doesn't change the fact that when there IS intel tying someone to activities, more often than not, we're reduced to pleading with some ridiculous government that won't give them up no matter what--or the person has, by then, been tipped off enough to have fled somewhere and the intel is wasted.
Where's the middleground there?
You have no idea what you're talking about. These abductions have been done with agreement of other countries, and in many cases they directly supported them. There is absolutely no issue with developed nations being unhelpful, they're helpful to the point where they've also been happy to break the law.
5534
Post by: dogma
Kanluwen wrote:Sebster--did I say anywhere, whatsoever, that snatching people off the street off of just one report from some goon who gets offered money to be an informant was a good idea?
No. I didn't.
You didn't say that, until now anyway, but you did say that people can have their rights rescinded on the basis of intelligence alone, which is exactly what sebster criticized. I'm not saying his criticism hit home, but it would be best if you stopped dramatizing a conversation which we all have a clear record of.
Either way, seizure on grounds of classified information is often necessary, but it isn't a particularly good idea to set it as public precedent in an environment based on ideological competition. Unless of course you're comfortable with interminable, active, military deployments overseas. Maybe you are, but I doubt very much that the majority of the public is.
Kanluwen wrote:
However, that doesn't change the fact that when there IS intel tying someone to activities, more often than not, we're reduced to pleading with some ridiculous government that won't give them up no matter what--or the person has, by then, been tipped off enough to have fled somewhere and the intel is wasted.
I was unaware that intelligence is more valuable than human life. I mean, I'm just cynical enough to believe exactly that, but again, the public probably isn't. Not a good face to put on our intelligence community at home, or abroad.
Kanluwen wrote:
Where's the middleground there?
Well, the obvious starting point would be the avoidance of major conflicts on the dictation of intelligence which had been countermanded by publicly available information. That would go a long way to establishing public trust with respect to the state security apparatus.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
I'm perfectly fine with grabbing suspects, based off of reliable intelligence.
But therein lies the problem, doesn't it?
Terrorist/resistance organizations are notoriously hard to infiltrate. Most intelligence in regards to their activities either comes second hand from other agencies, from vetted informants(who may/may not be acting as doubles and feeding intel right back to the organization you're trying to spy on), and other sources that can't be relied upon 100%.
And why should we have judicial oversight over intelligence operations? It comes, once again, into the grounds of time sensitivity. Judicial oversight on intelligence activities will be a major hindrance. Just look at how often 100% clean law enforcement operations get turned on their ass due to having to wait for some judge, who gets all pissy due to being woken up in the middle of the night, who then turns down a warrant request because of the JUDGE'S political/social views.
And as for the second point:
Gee. I wonder what countries wouldn't be cooperative?
Let's think about this here...
What countries are known to be fantastic hiding spots for al-Qaeda and its children?
Could Somalia be on that list? Any number of sub-Saharan Africa nations that aren't "developed"?
Or hey, let's give Abu-Sayyaf Group a shout-out here. Or the GIA, GSPC, or any number of groups that can seek(and receive) shelter from Pacific island nations, middle Asia, etc.
5470
Post by: sebster
Ahtman wrote:I like how you say 'crimes' like we are talking about someone swiping a pack of gum, or stealing a car. As if blowing up buildings, weddings, women, and children in a large internationally organized manner is in the same league as standard domestic crime. I'm against torture myself, but I think that is what is absurd.
I didn’t say crimes in any way. It was text, it can’t be said in any particular way. You might have read it a certain way, but I can’t really be held responsible for that.
But yeah, these are very serious crimes and they’ve being plotted by very horrible people. But there have always been very serious crimes, and there have always been very horrible people planning them. None of that means we need to allow government agents to abduct people and torture them without judicial oversight.
Exactly, which means they have no inherent value. Water doesn't need us to give it value, it has inherent value. A human can exist without the idea, and have, but it can't exist without the water.
But the value of that water is the value we give it. To the extent that societies have said that water is a public good and that everyone should access it is the extent to which we’ve given every house running water, and subsidised the cost of water to each household.
I'm not against the concept and I think it can do a lot of good but that doesn't mean I'm not going to pretend that it isn't entirely human fabrication. To value something a person needs to understand it (at least that is how I feel) and understanding this truth about these concepts doesn't devalue them, if anything it makes them more important because they need to be nurtured and kept alive. It isn't some eternal concept, it hasn't even been around that long in the big picture of human history. Because they are truly one of the few entirely human creations they are important. Of course, like property rights, it can be abused (ask anyone in South Africa or a Lakota). It is also similiar to property rights in that they mean something different in different places so there isn't some universal definition either.
Yeah, human rights haven’t been around forever. And they will disappear tomorrow if we don’t care about them.
Which is all the more reason to say that abducting people without trial and torturing them is absolutely unacceptable.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Also:
We also have to deal with the fact that while terrorist/resistance/"freedom fighter" organizations are hard to infiltrate and gather intelligence on--the opposite is true for major agencies due to the Freedom of Information Act and its equivalents. There's also the fact that local/federal law enforcement aren't as well-versed in dealing with the signs of the organizations as they should be, no matter how much training is given to them. It becomes something that has to be decided upon by the officers on the ground.
Take the 9/11 hijackers and Timothy McVeigh for example.
What do both of these have in common?
Rental vehicles, falsified driver's documentation, and stopped for traffic violations. And NONE of those incidents raised red flags that should have been going to a federal level.
14869
Post by: Wrexasaur
sebster wrote:But the determined value of that water is the determined value we give it. To the extent that societies have said that water is a public good and that everyone should access it is the extent to which we’ve given every house running water, and subsidised the cost of water to each household.
Something can have inherent value, without having specific value.
5534
Post by: dogma
Kanluwen wrote: who then turns down a warrant request because of the JUDGE'S political/social views.
Or, you know, he might deny the warrant on the basis of law.
Kanluwen wrote:
What countries are known to be fantastic hiding spots for al-Qaeda and its children?
Could Somalia be on that list? Any number of sub-Saharan Africa nations that aren't "developed"?
With the exception of Somalia, Al-Qaeda has never operated in sub-Saharan Africa. They have no incentive to do so, as there is little coreligionist support.
Kanluwen wrote:
Or hey, let's give Abu-Sayyaf Group a shout-out here. Or the GIA, GSPC, or any number of groups that can seek(and receive) shelter from Pacific island nations, middle Asia, etc.
Why are you concerned with terrorist groups that have no history of, or ideological plans to, target America (excepting the GSPC, but we'll get to that in the next sentence)? Moreover, why are you concerned with Algerian terrorist groups when the Algerian government is both sympathetic to the United States, and the specific target of the majority of those organizations?
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Go read a book.
Specifically:
"Terrorism and Organized Hate Crime: Intelligence Gathering, Analysis and Investigations". by Michael R. Ronczkowski.
Go on, I'll wait.
5534
Post by: dogma
Kanluwen wrote:
Rental vehicles, falsified driver's documentation, and stopped for traffic violations. And NONE of those incidents raised red flags that should have been going to a federal level.
Why would they go to the federal level? Unless you intend to process all vehicle rentals, falsified documents, and traffic violations at the federal level?
5470
Post by: sebster
Kanluwen wrote:Gee. I wonder what countries wouldn't be cooperative?
Let's think about this here...
What countries are known to be fantastic hiding spots for al-Qaeda and its children?
Could Somalia be on that list? Any number of sub-Saharan Africa nations that aren't "developed"?
Or hey, let's give Abu-Sayyaf Group a shout-out here. Or the GIA, GSPC, or any number of groups that can seek(and receive) shelter from Pacific island nations, middle Asia, etc.
What are you talking about? They abducted a dude in Italy. With help from Italian government agents.
5534
Post by: dogma
Kanluwen wrote:Go read a book.
Specifically:
"Terrorism and Organized Hate Crime: Intelligence Gathering, Analysis and Investigations". by Michael R. Ronczkowski.
Go on, I'll wait.
First, I've read the book. Its interesting, but it doesn't really have anything to do with the big strategic questions that you're attempting to address when you bring up large, regional categories. Indeed, by blindly asserting that sub-Saharan Africa is a breeding ground for Islamist terrorism you're ignoring much of its advice.
Second, don't be a child. You can very easily address what I've presented without attempting to claim some higher level of knowledge on the basis of disagreement.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
dogma wrote:Kanluwen wrote:
Rental vehicles, falsified driver's documentation, and stopped for traffic violations. And NONE of those incidents raised red flags that should have been going to a federal level.
Why would they go to the federal level? Unless you intend to process all vehicle rentals, falsified documents, and traffic violations at the federal level?
You've read the book. You tell me. Chapter Five/Six.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
You've read the book. You tell me. Chapter Five/Six.
Well this conversation has taken a turn for the ludicrously pedantic. If you specify a page, line and word next I'm going to give you a medal.
14854
Post by: Anshal
Great.. Another whine and moan tread. Well back on topic, I have no particulary opnion on this save for that kiddnaping is bad anyways, and there may have been some form of hush hush going on, But then again I dont have all the facts either
722
Post by: Kanluwen
No, you don't. Neither do I, Dogma, Sebster or anyone on this board. None of us are privy to CIA operations.
And also:
It's not "kidnapping" when a government agency picks you up in relation to an investigation.
It's called "arrest". At the very most, the agents could be tried for false imprisonment.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Anshal wrote:Great.. Another whine and moan tread. Well back on topic, I have no particulary opnion on this save for that kiddnaping is bad anyways, and there may have been some form of hush hush going on, But then again I dont have all the facts either
So it's a whine and moan thread that you can't be bothered to give any sort of opinion on beyond "Well kidnapping is bad, but I don't know all the facts"?
Tsk Tsk
Automatically Appended Next Post: Kanluwen wrote:No, you don't. Neither do I, Dogma, Sebster or anyone on this board. None of us are privy to CIA operations.
And also:
It's not "kidnapping" when a government agency picks you up in relation to an investigation.
It's called "arrest". At the very most, the agents could be tried for false imprisonment.
Extrajudicial arrest and incarceration is kidnapping isn't it? Just because they are officers of the law doesn't mean that it's called something different when they break it.
21542
Post by: Mad Monk's Mekshop
bloody cia they deserved it
5470
Post by: sebster
Kanluwen wrote:No, you don't. Neither do I, Dogma, Sebster or anyone on this board. None of us are privy to CIA operations.
And also:
It's not "kidnapping" when a government agency picks you up in relation to an investigation.
It's called "arrest". At the very most, the agents could be tried for false imprisonment.
When they're taken into federal custody and put through due process it's an arrest. When they're secretly grabben and taken to an undisclosed location in a third country and tortured it is something very different. Call it kidnapping or don't. Possibly if you really crave absolute accuracy call it 'secretly grabbing someone, taking them to an undisclosed third country and torturing them'. Automatically Appended Next Post: Wrexasaur wrote:Something can have inherent value, without having specific value.
Possibly, I don't know. To be perfectly blunt I don't care.
The concept of human rights is a shorthand for obligations and limitations placed on government, based on things we value as a society. When a person is taken by government agents in secret and then tortured people will often say 'his human rights were violated'. Whether or not there is some objective, absolute meaning to human rights is besides the point, what matters is that government did something it must not be allowed to do.
5534
Post by: dogma
Kanluwen wrote:
You've read the book. You tell me. Chapter Five/Six.
So your thoughts on this matter are limited to a single book that was, at best, mediocre? I'd suggest you broaden your exposure a bit.
In any case, offender profiles are useful when they are constructed from sound data over an extended period of time. This means keeping extensive records across various jurisdictions with respect to any given offense. There may have been cause for those speeding tickets to be uploaded to a central database, but there was no reason for them to be forwarded to the desk of a Homeland Security employee. Unless, again, you're going to review every rental vehicle that receives a traffic ticket. So yeah, if what you're saying is that there should be a central database for criminal/civil offenses I agree with you, but that's not the same as forwarding offenses to the federal level.
Also, never mention chapter 6 of that book. Its godawful.
Kanluwen wrote:
It's not "kidnapping" when a government agency picks you up in relation to an investigation.
It's called "arrest". At the very most, the agents could be tried for false imprisonment.
The CIA doesn't investigate under any legal consideration of the term. Technically there aren't any laws being violated when they abduct someone not residing in the United States, so they can't be charged with any criminal offense in the US. Obviously, the same does not apply in other nations.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
ShumaGorath wrote:Extrajudicial arrest and incarceration is kidnapping isn't it? Just because they are officers of the law doesn't mean that it's called something different when they break it.
Uh, the CIA's jurisdiction is international.
If the FBI had snatched the guy, it might be a valid case. Automatically Appended Next Post: dogma wrote:Kanluwen wrote:
You've read the book. You tell me. Chapter Five/Six.
So your thoughts on this matter are limited to a single book that was, at best, mediocre? I'd suggest you broaden your exposure a bit.
In any case, offender profiles are useful when they are constructed from sound data over an extended period of time. This means keeping extensive records across various jurisdictions with respect to any given offense. There may have been cause for those speeding tickets to be uploaded to a central database, but there was no reason for them to be forwarded to the desk of a Homeland Security employee. Unless, again, you're going to review every rental vehicle that receives a traffic ticket. So yeah, if what you're saying is that there should be a central database for criminal/civil offenses I agree with you, but that's not the same as forwarding offenses to the federal level.
Also, never mention chapter 6 of that book. Its godawful.
Actually, my knowledge is confined to the book due to it being my first real introduction to this matter so far. I've got a lot to learn, and I'm tryin'.
dogma wrote:
It's not "kidnapping" when a government agency picks you up in relation to an investigation.
It's called "arrest". At the very most, the agents could be tried for false imprisonment.
The CIA doesn't investigate under any legal consideration of the term. Technically there aren't any laws being violated when they abduct someone not residing in the United States, so they can't be charged with any criminal offense in the US. Obviously, the same does not apply in other nations.
Except in order to be charged(in my understanding at least) they'd have to be tried under the laws that their agency operates, not the country they're operating in.
5534
Post by: dogma
Kanluwen wrote:
Uh, the CIA's jurisdiction is international.
Technically the CIA doesn't have a jurisdiction. They are forbidden from operating within the United States, but that's pretty much it. Their activity is considered extralegal with respect to US law. Obviously excepting those instances where they choose to violate the stipulations of their mandate, but that hasn't happened yet according to public knowledge (it probably hasn't, the FBI has claws).
Kanluwen wrote:
Except in order to be charged(in my understanding at least) they'd have to be tried under the laws that their agency operates, not the country they're operating in.
Its a gray area. There isn't really any law governing the treatment of spies outside of wartime. In general, where a trial is considered, the model to be followed is that of the Geneva Conventions (as espionage is considered a necessarily hostile activity), which only specify the right to a fair and speedy trial. It can be assumed, outside the interference of a protecting power, that any trial would be carried out under the law of the state in which the spy was caught. Of course, as spies operate away from prying eyes, any compliance with conventional procedure is purely dependent on the detaining state.
The CIA is a special case, given that US power gives it's agents a bit of protection from permanent detention.
5470
Post by: sebster
Kanluwen wrote:Uh, the CIA's jurisdiction is international.
.... therefore it's correct to call it arrest when they're secretly grabbed and taken to an undisclosed location to be tortured.
8471
Post by: olympia
Robert Seldon Lady, the CIA station chief, said in a 2009 interview, "I'm not guilty. I'm only responsible for carrying out orders that I received from my superiors." hmm....where have I heard this before...oh yes--here:
"From my childhood, obedience was something I could not get out of my system. When I entered the armed service at the age of twenty-seven, I found being obedient not a bit more difficult than it had been during my life to that point. It was unthinkable that I would not follow orders.” Adolph Eichmann
Why are these CIA criminals cocmplete morons bereft of any knowledge of history?
5534
Post by: dogma
Well, that was an unexpected pseudo-Godwin.
8471
Post by: olympia
dogma wrote:Well, that was an unexpected pseudo-Godwin.
I'm sorry. I tried to restrain myself.
20700
Post by: IvanTih
Nelson:HAW-HAW
221
Post by: Frazzled
dogma wrote:Well, that was an unexpected pseudo-Godwin.
Not unexpected.
5394
Post by: reds8n
T'would seem this thread has reached the end of it's usefulness.
..5 pages..not bad for us OT denizens.
|
|
