US treatment of prisoners (actual video footage)

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Nyah, Nyah to you Verges. Nana-nana-boo-boo, can't catch us. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

Ah yes, the United States...land of the free, home of the brave, and shining example of how not to be a law abiding country in the International Community.

[Timber Loftis]

Damned skippy! International law is just contract law anyway, and it's all really mushy stuff. I note that there are ways to enforce international law -- oh wait, most countries agreed since the beginning that they want an "escape hatch" to preserve national sovereignty if internatnional law gets too silly or becomes something they can't abide.

A system of law is only as strong as its enforceability. The US abides by international law, and pays the applicable penalty when it does not. Of course, often there's not an applicable penalty. Such is life, too bad, so sad, boo hoo.

There were times in history when the US and other countries would have agreed to stronger international law -- a big one, for instance, is the compulsive jurisdiction of the ICJ. They missed that opportunity, however, and left ICJ jurisdiction voluntary. Then, countries started pulling their jurisdiction waivers. France got pissed when it got sued for setting nukes off in the South Pacific and pulled its waiver. The US got pissed when it got sued for a harbor bombing in Nicaragua, and pulled its waiver.

The international community missed a big opportunity, perhaps the only one until after the next world war, to get the nations to agree to really truly enforceable laws while they were all seeing things the same way for a while. That time passed, and now we disagree on a lot. I actually thought that was a bad thing until 9/11, and now I'm glad we're not subject to EU or world approval for everything we do.

[Thoran]

Creating a Global Government with teeth is a tall order... getting governments with complete control over their territory to WILLINGLY cede sovereignty? I just don't see it happening short of a major catastrophy. Look at the problems the Europeans are having just trying to do it in their little corner of the globe. As much as the leftists hate the idea... I thing the best hope for linking countries is global commerce. I just could be that it's a bit tougher to go to war with a country that your economy is highly intertwined with... then again... could be wrong.

[Timber Loftis]

It's not that simple, Thoran. In fact, let's look to commerce. The only place there has been a real concession of sovereignty is at the WTO. While environmental harms and killing people only merit an ICJ or ICC claim, where a country has to agree to be sued, on the other hand every country that's a part of the WTO is subject to the rulings of the dispute settlement body for economic wrongs -- period, full stop. Now, yes, there is the "we'll rewrite our national law again, and see if it sticks" game that countries do so you can get 3 or 4 shots at a favorable DSB ruling, but at the end of the day, if you want into the WTO, you are subject to it.

Now, that would be akin to making UN membership contingent on compulsory ICJ jurisdiction. Which perhaps should be done. Countries can withdraw from the UN as a final recourse, but that is an expensive and frightening endeavor, because there are hundreds of treaties you suddenly lose the benefit of if you withdraw from the UN.

Actually, Thoran, the real answer is that through the WTO, there is an international government of sorts being developed. Think of the WTO as having only a Commerce Agency, without any of the other government agencies in place. Once you do that, it sorta requires you build the other agencies around it -- to handle fallout issues from giving commerce preeminance (such as Labor and Environment issues). Either that, or the Commerce Agency grows to become More Than Just The Commerce Agency (i.e. if the WTO were to start considering/governing things other than commerce, like labor or the environment).

Anyway, enough of my musings on these issues. I saw international government as emerging and inevitable -- until 9/11. Now, things have really sort of begun to sunder. Time will tell.

[ 05-14-2004, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

I heard about this speech this morning and looked it up on the web. Since I work in Georgia about 10 miles from Zell Miller's home, I had a special interest in hearing/reading what he said. He was very popular during his tenure as Georgia's governer. This is what he had to say to President Bush regarding the events at Abu Ghraib.

Miller: Finger-pointing, Apologies
Over Prisoner Treatment Only Boost Enemy
"I Refuse to Join In National Act of Contrition'

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) today delivered the following statement on the floor of the United States Senate addressing the situation at the Abu Ghraib prison.

“Mr. President, here we go again, here we go again. Rushing to give aid and comfort to the enemy. Pushing and pulling and shoving and leaping over one another to assign blame and point the finger at America the Terrible. Lining up in long lines at the microphones to offer apologies to those poor, pitiful Iraqi prisoners.

“Of course, I do not condone all the things that went on in that prison, but I for one, Mr. President, refuse to join in this national Act of Contrition over it.

“Those who are wringing their hands and shouting so loudly for “heads to roll” over this seem to have conveniently overlooked the fact that someone’s head HAS rolled - that of another innocent American brutally murdered by terrorists.

“Why is it? Why is it that there’s more indignation over a photo of a prisoner with underwear on his head than over the video of a young American with no head at all? Why is it that some in this country still don’t get that we are at war? A war against terrorists who are plotting to kill us every day. Terrorists who will murder Americans at any time any place any chance they get.

“And yet here we are, America on its knees, in front of our enemy, begging for their forgiveness over the mistreatment of prisoners. Showing the enemy and the world once again how easily America can get sidetracked and how easily America can turn against it self.

“Yes, some of our soldiers went too far with their interrogation tactics and clearly were not properly trained to handle such duty. But the way to deal with this is with swift and sure punishment, and immediate and better training. There also needs to be more careful screening of who it is we put in these kinds of sensitive situations.

“And no one wants to hear this, Mr. President and I’m reluctant to say it. But there should also be some serious questioning of having male and female soldiers serving side by side in these kinds of military missions.

“But instead, I worry that the HWA - the Hand-Wringers of America - will add to their membership and continue to bash our country ad nauseam. And in doing so, hand over more innocent Americans to the enemy on a silver platter.

“So I stand with Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma, who stated that he’s “more outraged by the outrage” than by the treatment of those prisoners. More outraged by the outrage. It’s a good way of putting it. That’s exactly how this Senator from Georgia feels.”

This speech was delivered on the Senate floor last Thursday (May 13) and the transcript was copied directly from Zell Miller's official website

[ 05-18-2004, 08:59 AM: Message edited by: Cerek the Barbaric ]

[Memnoch]

Hmmm....that's an interesting viewpoint...

[Donut]

I see. So it's not the disgusting things taht were done but the condemnation of the disgusting things that were done that is the problem here.

[Timber Loftis]

Good speech, Cerek. Thanks. And, I agree. Deal with the soldiers who did it (however high it may run), quit apologizing to the enemy, and when the media asks for investigations and inquiries and hearings about inquiries about investigations, tell them to take their thumb and insert it where the sun don't shine. Just fix it -- quit playing to everyone's whinings about it.

[Black Baron]

I am 100 % with the author of cerek's response.

[Gnarf]

Why is it? Why is it that there?s more indignation over a photo of a prisoner with underwear on his head than over the video of a young American with no head at all? Why is it that some in this country still don?t get that we are at war? A war against terrorists who are plotting to kill us every day. Terrorists who will murder Americans at any time any place any chance they get.

I'm not quite sure if his point is that putting underwear on prisoners' heads is an essential part of being in war, or if he's just got no idea why people seem to expect more from the US army than from a bunch'a terrorists. He doesn't seem to clever either way...