Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
In trying to understand Obama's actions toward the c.i.a., one can never afford to assume that threats were not made.
"I'm sixty-eight" he said, "I first bucked hat when I was seventeen. I thought that day, I started, I sure would hate to do this all my life. And dammit, that's just what I've gone and done." -Gary Snyder.
That is fine.
Lord, GC!, you are (no joking) a bard beyond all bards. Even when not creating the line (Shelly, Wordswoth, Blake, et. al.,), you find its application.
all forgive.
Aside from Brennan, is Obama being wise in his picks considering the need for re-election in 2012 in order to actually get something done? I'll re-read your slamming of Democratic penitence to bipartisanship the last 8 years to see if you answer my question.
Thanks for retaining the comments section of your blog. Andrew Sullivan, George Packer (all the Atlantic and New Yorker folks, it seems) don't allow public airing of comments, which is frustrating and which makes me put them in this "political class" you talk about. You leaving comments open keeps things transparent and gives your column credibility.
I will respect your desire not to be bothered over this issue any longer, but I did want to clarify a couple of things just so that you don't have the wrong impression about what I was saying.
The argument I was making was completely and solely a legal one. I was not making a moral argument as to what is right or wrong. I also was not saying that these captives are not deserving of human rights.
I was only saying that I don't see how the GCs possibly govern our fight with al-Qaida legally. They can only come into play indirectly when we are in direct armed conflict with another HCP, such as we were in Iraq and Afghanistan back in 2002-2004. CA3 may also apply now when we are helping Iraq and Afghanistan with internal conflict.
You have interesting ideas as to what constitutes a war zone, a battlefield, and an armed conflict.
I do? I honestly asked the question of what defines a war zone and a battlefield today simply because I do not know how such things are legally defined.
As far as "armed conflict" goes, I do think we are in armed conflict with al-Qaida. I just don't think that al-Qaida is a HCP and so the GCs can only get applied to them tangentally while we are in armed conflict with an actual HCP or helping an HCP with internal strife.
It would appear that only you, and possibly the Bush administration, believe otherwise.
The only thing I'm basing my opinion on is a straight forward reading of the Conventions themselves. It could very well be that there is commentary from when the GCs were established that further clarify the text and fill in some of the gaps that I pointed out.
It is extremely interesting that you assert a "new kind of war" in defining a battlefield to use the Geneva Conventions, then assert that "there are no new kinds of war" to dismiss one of the parties of the conflict as ineligible.
You seem to ascribing words and ideas to me that I've never posted here. My primary claim was only that the GCs cannot directly govern our conflict with al-Qaida simply because they are not a HCP nor eligible to be a HCP, as you yourself pointed out.
By the way, it was the U.S. that asserted to the Committee Against Torture (2006) both that the fight with al Qaeda was an "armed conflict" and that the Geneva Conventions applied ...
I guess they thought that if the GCs applied but then illegal combatants somehow fell through its cracks, then no other law could govern. I look at it differently. I say the GCs do not apply and so instead other international law does govern.
... attempting to squeeze inhumanity through the spaces in the words of the common articles in order to argue for a space where humanitarian law does not exist ...
I was just showing you how/why I don't think the GCs apply. Implicitly, I was challenging you and others to figure out what international laws should actually govern these prisoners.
I don't think there is a resolution to this debate, you don't want to believe the Geneva Conventions apply to all armed conflict
Correct. I think the GCs only apply to armed conflict between HCPs (or a non-HCP nation that implements and upholds it tenets) and CA3 applies to civil war within a HCP. This is clear simply by reading CA2 and CA3 alone.
So I'd like, with your kind permission, to be relieved of further debating it.
No further need to respond. I just wanted one last shot at making myself clear as it seemed you had some wrong ideas about what I said and/or was arguing.
Cheers!
If you want to understand what I say CA3 is only meant to cover civil war, while the rest of the GCs are meant to only cover war between nation states:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/1a13044f3bbb5b8ec12563fb0066f226/466097d7a301f8c4c12563cd00424e2b!OpenDocument
My compliments to the six journalists who received the International Press Freedom Award. One of 'em was imprisoned by the United States for two years without charges. The Stars and Stripes forever!
Saint President-elect Obama is indeed an Establishment figure. He was one of two nominees of the DemoPublican Party. If the past is prologue, as they say, he'll likely pursue Establishment policies. Those who voted for him might be in for a big disappointment.
For what it's worth, I went to Obama's web site--change.gov--and expressed my opposition to Hillary Clinton's nomination as Secretary of State. I said: ". . . At a time when fresh foreign policy initiatives are needed--especially in the Middle East--Clinton's nomination sends the wrong message. Mrs. Clinton is a captive of the Israel Lobby, and she's a neocon. Need I say more?"
Brother heru-ur
Me: I am also angry at the president elect who has indicated that he will hold no one responsible for these present crimes against humanity.
Do you have any direct evidence for this, other than previously reported rumor?
-- Baldie McEagle
Someone else asked about evidence that Obama was going to break our hearts, or mine at least, by continuing the American empire and murdering innocent people abroad. Now the bald one asks about holding war criminals accountable. These questions came from last thread and maybe the one before, but they will soon be closed and this one may hold through Saturday, so I'll answer here were they may see the answer.
First, I have watched every president elected since Eisenhower commit war crimes without anyone being held accountable. Clinton was not impeached over any real crime; only the fake blow-job dog and pony show. Hell, the left hailed his killing of civilians and destroying countries that we had no quarrel with --- all in the name of being "humanitarian" don't ya know.
Nixon was not held accountable for Vietnam, only a cover-up of a break-in. There were folks in my own family who received orders that show Nixon should have been hung. *(no, I mean hung)*
So, the evidence of the past says Obama will be a monster also, and that he will protect his fellow monsters.
But, he is *change* is he not? Well, birds of a feather and all that --- he is appointing Democratic neo-cons. Is that not evidence that he agrees with the neo-con point of view? Is not promising Israel that he will 'do what it takes' to keep Israel "safe" a wee bit of evidence?
I am thinking of a wager for regulars here who think Obama is the messiah, but I have not had time to think it over. Something along the lines of if a thing happens in the first year of Obama's term one side or the other will leave here forever. But that might hurt Glenn's mission and I would never want to do that. Maybe something else. I'll get back to you on it.
But evidence? Are you blind? And yes, I know evidence is not proof but we humans often must work without absolute proof. (this is why math proofs are so satisfying to so many)
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
