Bush claims authority to suspend Geneva

[alex]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apw...se%20Highlights

It would seem that the Bush administration feels that it can suspend the Geneva convention agreements with respect to prisoner treatment, in the case of Al Qaeda detainees. I suppose this means we could start beheading them, and hanging their corpses, on fire, upside down, from the nearest bridge in Iraq. I'm fairly confident it won't come to that.

I won't say I agree with the position. However, I'll point out what Sandy said when I mentioned this to her: "It's like retribution." That much I can agree with. It seems to me, that if you're sitting at the head of this country, and you see continual civilian beheadings, sooner or later, somebody is going to push you to the point of retribution. At least, I can see myself in that position. I don't think, despite the requirement of stoicism and composure in office, I could maintain composure in the face of recent attacks on civilians. They are, afterall, there to install a new infrastructure for a country which previously had none. This latest victim wanted to become a missionary.

It is my conjecture that the international community will not continue to bear this for much longer. At some point, people are going to stop saying "Maybe we should pull the troops out" and start saying "Beheading every civilian in sight is going too far. Something needs to be done about this."

I for one would most likely be knee-deep in a salt-the-earth campaign by now.

Alex

[PatrickHenry]

Is there something you wish to debate, alex?

[alex]

Originally posted by PatrickHenry,
Is there something you wish to debate, alex?

I suppose either of:

* Whether the Bush administration can actually suspend Geneva.
* Whether, should it be legal to do so, it would be justifyable.

Would be appropriate. I'm really more curious what other people think of this. I think my stance on this is pretty clear.

Alex

[PatrickHenry]

Bush can do anything he wants to. He is the Emperor of America. The only thing that can bring down a President is public opinion. If that single factor can be successfully managed, any sitting president is invulnerable. Legality is not really a problem, especially in regards to international regulation, like the Geneva Convention. Suspension of the GC is not technically feasible, but who is there to enforce it against the President of the United States?

Justification is possible, but only in terms of manipulated US public opinion. The people of the wide world will not agree, and the US position in international relations will be further marginalized. My opinions...

[Comrade]

Neither of you seem to understand the Geneva conventions.
Firstly, the United States never actually passed them, so legality is not an issue, even though we adhere to them anyways.
Secondly, they (the conventions) only apply to nations and opponents which abide by them. That is why Hitler never used chemical weapons. He didn't not use them because he honored the Geneva convention, he didn't use them because WE did. If he had used them, that would eliminate our obligation to. If he had used chemical weapons, Berlin would've been under a cloud of mustard gas. THAT is an enforcement mechanism.


Margainalization of the US status in international relations? Is that why France is so keen to pretend that this was just "A disagreement between friends?"
You're also doing disrespect by ignoring the nations which supported us, like poland, ukraine, australia, etc.

[Gorgo]

The United States of America is subject to international law. It has never thought it was, and has rebuffed all efforts to build any institution that could enforce intenternational law or any kind of international democracy. Not to mention the fact that it has done what it can to end efforts by nations to build democracy.

[Comrade]

Originally posted by Gorgo,
The United States of America is subject to international law. It has never thought it was, and has rebuffed all efforts to build any institution that could enforce intenternational law or any kind of international democracy. Not to mention the fact that it has done what it can to end efforts by nations to build democracy.

What a load of bull, is all I can say.

Nobody is subject to international law because there is no objective higher power, it is kaput. The only reason the government can take me to trial for crimes, or that civil cases can be heard against me is because it is disinterested, neutral.
There is no such thing in the world right now.
America HAS rebuffed efforts to build such institutions, simply because of that.

Yeah, I'm Saddam was right on his way to democracy, god damn us for interfering. :rolleyes:
Show me one case where democracy was about to break out and we stifled it. You can't do that, even in the Cold War when we supported one dictator over another. Democracy requires an environment to grow. It happened in America because of our oceans. It happened in Europe because of the American military umbrella, and that is how it will be acheived in Iraq.

[Gorgo]

Yes, by your definition, everything the U.S. does was actually done by Jesus Christ Himself. My mistake. They didn't actually end any chance for democracy in Guatemala, Iran, Iraq, Nicaragua, Cuba, etc., etc., etc., because it really wouldn't have succeeded.

[Comrade]

:rolleyes:
Yeah. Now, just like every time this comes up, let's ask some questions.
1) Why did we take those courses of action? (don't worry, nobody ever answered this in the other threads either, so you don't have to)
2) What does this have to do with the Geneva Conventions?
3) You don't have to answer that question either, because they make your arguement irrelevant and your change of subject apparent, and we can't have that, now can we?

[Gorgo]

1) Sorry, I forgot, the end justifies the means. Tell that to Saddam Hussein.

2) The U.S. is subject to international law.

3) Evidently you're saying my response to your off-topic question was off-topic, so I'll end that.

[Gorgo]

Or maybe I just went off-topic completely on my own. Sorry.

I guess the question just isn't where the Geneva Conventions apply and where they don't, but how best to treat people.

Those people that don't conduct themselves in a certain manner are not protected by the Geneva Conventions anyway. Does that mean that we can torture them? Does that mean that torture is a good way to do business, even if it is legal? I don't think so. The only thing left to question is what is proper behavior. What do we want people to do to our soldiers?

[Comrade]

What deterrent is it if we don't? That's the point. We are being pussy in this war, no doubt about it. All this whining about Guantanamo...
I look at it this way. If a robber points a gun at a cashier, he values the 200 dollars inside more than the cashiers life. That is why I have no problems when people shoot robbers and the robbers end up dead or maimed.
We aren't there to be nice and hold hands and make everyone happy. We are there to make Iraqis happy, because a happy Iraq isn't good for the neighboring regimes.
They are going to kill our soldiers if captured, there is no doubt about it. They are less likely to kill them if they don't think liberals are going to give them a free pass.
We should torture if it is outweighed by what we might get out of it. I don't want us to torture, but when you get bull like a captain or colonel getting discharged for firing a pistol near someone's head, which caused him to reveal information that helped save American soldier's lives as some sort of scapegoat...
The thing is torture ISNT a good way to do business, which is why we usually don't. But there are situations where it would be incredibly, and there is no legal reason why we couldn't, even according to worthless international law.