Crimes, War Crimes and the War on Terror
The Lewis and Clark Law School, Portland, Oregon, USA held this symposium in April 2007 and have now published a number of articles. This is the link:
http://www.lclark.edu/org/lclr/issue_11_4.html and this one links to the speakers bios: http://www.lclark.edu/org/artslive/lawreviewsymp.html
The subjects include:
The Role of Federal Criminal Prosecutions in the War on Terrorism
Federal Prosecution of Terrorism-Related Offenses: Conviction and Sentencing Data in Light of the "Soft-Sentence" and "Data-Reliability"
Critiques
Enemies of the State: Rational Classification in the War on Terrorism
Combatant Status Review Tribunals: An Ordeal Through the Eyes of One "Enemy Combatant"
Enemy Aliens, Enemy Property, and Access to the Courts
Hamdan, Terror, War
Why States Need an International Law for Information Operations
Al-Qaeda and the Law of War
Surveillance and Transparency
Electronic Surveillance of Terrorism: The Intelligence/Law Enforcement Dilemma - A History
Rays of Sunlight in a Shadow “War”: FOIA, The Abuses of Anti-Terrorism, and the Strategy of Transparency
I've only read three, on surveillance, they are interesting for a non-American and probably of more value for an American.
davidbfpo
Well said and I totally agree. Seems to me that
the Lawyers totally blew it in an effort to outsmart themselves. Use of 'PW' instead of 'detainee' and keeping them in the nation where picked up -- or in Afghanistan for those from Pakistan or elsewhere -- would've been the simple solution and far better PR (and, no Lawyer but IMO, legal) decision. All that detainee foolishness and the arch stupidity that was and is Gitmo couldn't have been much worse if the bad guys were the planners.
Hmmm... :wry:
On the PR angle, the US is going to get tabbed by not only the opposition but by some of our 'friends' and by many here in the US as the bad guy almost no matter what we do. Why that is so difficult for the squirrels in DC to comprehend and attempt to mitigate by not being stupid I cannot fathom. They need to tumble to that fact and stop trying to 'do the right thing so the world will see we're really nice.' The world is absolutely determined not to see that and to deny it if it appears that way; been that way all my adult life and it's really not much worse now than it has been since about 1947 or so; we just communicate far more widely and rapidly today so it seems worse. Not as bad now as it was during Viet Nam.
So on the PR front (since the late 40s) as well as the international terrorism front (since 1972) we refuse to adapt to reality; "It must be done as we wish it done." Get over it, Washington, not going to happen... :mad:
NOTE: This was addressed to Shmedlap's post; Marc beat me ;)
Marc and wm; good points. But...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marct
...On a more serious note, though, there has been a lot of international concern about the US governments position on international law in many areas, and the Gitmo experience (along with extraordinary rendition, etc.) only reinforces the concerns held by other countries (think Italy for a sec...). In Canada, we have been following the Gitmo travesty ever since Khadr was captured, and the ongoing French bedroom farce of his detainment makes headlines fairly often.
True, our position on International Law has been subject to many blasts from the remainder of the world in my lifetime. Some warranted, some not -- those viewpoint dependent. Gitmo was stupid. Khadr has been mishandled by the ridiculous commission setup, no question but the fact that he was "a child soldier" who deserves release on that count is I believe wrong. He is said to be 'salvageable' and to have modified his attitude. Sorry, I'm an old cynic...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wm
I do not disagree with your point, but I would hope that we could replace the motivation for doing the right thing. We ought not to be doing "the right thing so the world will see we're really nice." We ought to be doing the right thing just because it is the right thing. (Sorry if this sounds like I'm being naively idealistic ;))
I agree with your goal but would point out that others do not operate that way and while some disadvantage to do the right thing can and should be accepted -- and we do that, all day and every day in many ways and knowingly and willingly give others an advantage -- there had better be limits or we will not be around to do the right thing. Thus, regrettably, I do suspect you're being a bit naively idealistic.
More good points. But (yet again...)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marct
This becomes a very interesting question - what is a "uniform"? It wasn't a problem back in the day, but I would submit that it is now.
Agreed but unfortunately, the GC is not designed to cope with today's modified realities so the Lawyers get to play.
Quote:
...As such, any who wear their uniform (even if they define that as civilian clothes) must be offered the protection of the Geneva conventions analogous to the volunteer brigades in the Spanish Civil War. I know, it's not a popular argument :wry:.
I agree. That's why I said the majority (including all the Talib) should've simply been declared PW and confined in Afghanistan. The real issue is with the non-Taliban types, the AQ folks who do not merit the protection you propose and the GC offers and with which I agree.
Quote:
Sorry, their definition as "illegal combatants". At the same time, the GC is vastly out of date and, in its categories, somewhat ridiculous.
Disagree on the former, agree on the latter -- I did however note that the Lawyers did not do the former at all well...
Quote:
The problem with the sorting is that it doesn't really account for the current reality <sigh>. What is needed, IMHO, is a category of "irregular combatants" who are treated as POWs, but who may be interrogated to determine motivation and possibility for criminal charges based on international law.
That might be possible though my suspicion is that any attempt to do that will be fought tooth and nail by the HR community.
Quote:
Nothing wrong with that :D. Still and all, Khadr met the UN definition of being a "child soldier". We can argue back and forth whether it is right or wrong in any individual case (or in general), but under existing international agreements, he meets the definition and law is all about definitions.
The UN is NOT a legislative body; they may propose things to their hearts content but they do not produce laws. Yes, Law is all about definitions or, more correctly, pocket lining arguments about definitions but it becomes sort of counterproductive when attempts to apply it fly in the face of common sense. A 15 year old can kill you just as dead as can a 30 year old.
Not to start a food fight but instead of looking down noses at the people who simply apprehended a 'child' being where he should not have been and doing something he should not have been doing and correctly in my view attempting to punish him for that, folks might want to look at the fact that the child had no business being there, had no business doing what he was doing and the fact that he was taken to that environment by his Father and possibly encouraged to do those things is not an excuse; the kid was in the wrong place at the wrong time and allegedly doing the wring thing -- and we did not put him there.
An attitude of excessive forgiveness of children for being little monsters has put the entire European hearth in danger of a takeover by the little dears. They need to learn that actions have consequences -- as do Parents who not only tolerate but actively encourage such foolishness (in this case criminality by the definition of the UN you say...). You youngsters will have fun with that, I'll be dead and gone so I'll miss it. :cool:
This has all been facinating but
why are they illegal anything?
If some AQ were moving through the area and thought my house was a good place for an ambush and the US troops found me cowering under my bed - assuming they did not shoot me on the spot - I would presumably spend the next decade trying to convince some GITMO guard I had not planned 9/11.
If I declare Ken an illegal combatant can I lock him up indefinitely? We disagree from time to time but I am not sure that would be very fair.
AQ to Taliban to AQ to ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marct
...Totally agree that the Taliban should have been declared POWs which, BTW, would include Khadr.
True. Then he'd be a PW with no reason to be tried and no hope of release until the end of hostilities...
Quote:
... The problem with most supra-national bodies is that they have what, for want of a better term, might be called "para-legislative" powers - they are legislative upon states, not individuals. It's awkward in oh so many ways...
Awkward perhaps but even the para legislative powers upon states is there only if the state(s) deign to accept them. For more on which see below.
Quote:
...Where we disagree is in whether or not our disgust with victim poker outweights the agreements our countries have signed on the rights of child soldiers...
You are aware the US has not ratified some of those protocols? One we and Canada have ratified is the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, which requires signatories to 'take all feasible measures' to ensure that children under age 18 do not participate in hostilities... ??? :wry:
Quote:
... Then again, with such sterling role models as Doug Feith around, that may be a touch tricky...
Ordinarily, I would not stoop to citing Maxime or Alphonse as examples that such dimwits abound worldwide but Fido Feith had nothing to do with the discussion. :D
Or, if he did, I missed the connection,,,