Since it’s Trump, I’d go more with “Perineum Millenium - The In-between Years”
This is the way the world ends.
This is the way the world ends.
This is the way the world ends.
Not with a full stop
But a colon.
(though I suppose it fits better when the pun’s in context…)
Detaining enemy POWs until the end of the war (or, in situations like the technically ongoing Korean War, until their status is negotiated in a cease-fire) can make sense, in a traditional war. Tell me, when do you expect this war to be over? Will the concept of “terror” surrender at long last? Will the concept of “terror” negotiate a cease-fire, and release of prisoners?
Made friends with the jihad, you say! Wow! I wonder if Amnesty knows about that. I somehow doubt that they do. In other words, that’s an extraordinary claim, and it requires extraordinary proof. Note that Breitbart doesn’t count. Take your time…
So who are your enemies? If they are incapable of seriously incapacitating your country (and I’d certainly say that’s the case), if those enemies are not a nation-state, then I would say it doesn’t matter whether they call it a war or not. Whatever acts of aggression they make are very easily handled in a court of law. The Conventions are very clear that an occupying power can detain these people, but they are also quite insistent that the detainees be treated with dignity and humanity, and brought to court where warranted. Gitmo has been a fail in both regards.
Interrogation wasn’t just in Gitmo by the FBI. There were quite a number of CIA black sites they passed through before Gitmo. It doesn’t even matter whether all of them were tortured or just a few: torture is illegal. It’s a war crime. It’s also very open to doubt that the general conditions of detainment were humane or legal. You may wish to ask yourself why the chaps in detention who have been called masterminds haven’t been tried in a full court of law.
Treaties that your country is signatory to have force of law according to your Constitution. Congress ratifies them. You are signatory to the Geneva Accords. Your Supreme Court is supposed to ensure that the laws are followed. They failed.
I wonder how many of those detainees were non-combatants until they were radicalised by the US’ inhumane treatment…
If you’re in the war business, this would be a good way of ensuring new customers.
It was absurd enough when we declared a War on Terrorism. But sometime in the early 2000s, this morphed into the War on Terror.
I still haven’t forgiven terror for allowing its meaning to shift like that.
To be blunt, I suspect that’s the whole point of the War on an Abstract: everyone who gets swept up in the detainee net has a possibility of being radicalised; everyone who loses a family member to a Hellfire in a country with whom your country isn’t at war (e.g., Yemen, Pakistan) has a possibility of being radicalised; everyone who loses a family member to occupying forces (Iraq, Afghanistan) has a possibility of being radicalised.
Daesh would never have seen light of day if the USA hadn’t made a bloody mess of Iraq for no good reason - the Iraqis knew damned well that they weren’t involved in 9/11. That was just the rape of a country to make money for a few well-connected companies.
But… the military/intelligence/industrial complex are making out like bandits (which, come to think of it, it is pretty apt description of them anyway), the pols are able to use the “crisis” to erode civil liberties, and, while everyone is fretting about “security”, your oligarchs are slowly stealing the country. The War on Terror is perfect! You don’t even have to switch between Eurasia and Eastasia to keep a war going forever.
DC ‘Beltway Bandits’ is a name well earned.
I would say @JonS answered this pretty well above.
And just when do you the ‘the war’ is going to be over? If ever.
It really is difficult to stamp out an abstract noun.
Hi, how’s it going?
[quote=“Military Police: Enemy Prisoners of War Retained Personnel Civilian Internees and Other Detainees (AR 190-8)”]Other Detainee (OD)
Persons in the custody of the U.S. Armed Forces who have not been classified as an Enemy Prisoner of War ( a r t i c l e 4 , G P W ) , Retained Personnel ( a r t i c l e 3 3 , GPW), or Civilian Internee (article 78, GC), shall be treated as Enemy Prisoner of Wars until a legal status is ascertained bycompetent authority.[/quote]
Well, we could Newspeak the word away, but then how would our Glorious Leaders keep us Terrorised?
You’re making a common mistake that somehow needs to be explained over and over: “War on Terror” is only a name. We are not at war against “terror.” We are not at war against all terrorists. We are at war against al-Qaeda and their allies. What we call the war is irrelevant. The Supreme Court doesn’t care at all that Bush used the term in his speeches.
We’re not even at war against all Islamic terrorists. Ever heard of the Uyghurs? A group of these Chinese Muslims had terror training camps in Afghanistan since before 9/11. We’d captured a number of them. Some are truly vile. But the administration lawyers decided they’re really at war with China, not us, and that meant we couldn’t keep holding them under the war authorization. As it happens, it took a long time to get rid of them because, quite naturally, they didn’t want to go home to China, which badly wanted them back. Every country we tried to send them to would get threatening calls from the Chinese government.
The funny part is (yeah, one needs to laugh), Guantanamo’s critics would cite the Uyghurs as examples of “innocent” victims who’d merely been in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Look up Gita Sahgal.
No, we can bring them to court. It doesn’t say that we must do so unless we pass sentences.
I didn’t say it was. I’m just pointing out that military and CIA interrogation was about intelligence, not finding evidence for a trial. That’s why the FBI was there, even at the black sites.
I’m glad you brought this one up:
Similarly, we’re generally (with some exceptions that don’t apply here) not responsible for treaties that we didn’t ratify, such as the Conventions’ Protocols I and II.
But here’s the important part:
Why do you even think they added those Protocols? It’s because they understood that there are some wars for which the Conventions don’t apply. That said, it wouldn’t matter for this war even if we had ratified them because it would have required some level of cooperation from Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
The very existence of Protocols I and II should make it pretty clear that the writers of the Conventions didn’t intend for all wars to be covered. But, frankly, Common Article 3 should make that clear as well. The ICRC documents explain that there was considerable resistance to CA3 back in 1949. That’s why it was so limited. It includes no provisions for POW status unless the parties choose to negotiate for it.
NO!
WRONG AGAIN!
Aside from the fact that they apply, they also became part of the UCMJ. At that point it ceases to ever be optional, and it is utterly irrelevant what the opposition does.
That’s your opinion based on what you think would have happened if we’d sent extradition papers to the Taliban (which we probably did right after 9/11). It doesn’t change whether or not it’s legal to do it the way the Bush administration did.
They’re not going to stop doing it.
No, it doesn’t. As I just explained, they wouldn’t have needed Protocols I & II if what you say is true. And even the Protocols don’t cover everyone.
What you’re forgetting is that the Conventions were written by governments with advice of their generals. They had extremely fresh memories of WWII, and had to contend with a Soviet threat. They would never have given POW status to unlawful combatants.
I wasn’t defending torture. I was defending the rights of nations to do something considerably less than torture when circumstances demand it. Some critics want to imagine that everything that scares a prisoner could be defined as torture.
Even the law passed by the Obama administration in 2015 allows methods that the critics would complain about.
You cannot say you’re opposed to torture when you define torture so narrowly that you’d allow practically anything.
The rest of your post is also ignorant wank, and not worth responding to.
Just like in any war, it depends when they want it to be over. The difference is that this one takes much longer. That doesn’t change whether or not it’s legal.
If it bothers you, then you should be asking yourself why Amnesty chose to partner with a group that supports the continuation of the jihad.
But keep in mind that detainees get annual reviews, and can be released when other conditions call for it. The U.S. military is better about this than its critics.
I don’t define it that narrowly. The CIA lawyers looked at previous cases (including allied governments) had decided where the line could be drawn.
It’s quite easy to cry “torture” when you define it as practically anything, and then not have to worry about the consequences.
