Gabrielle Giffords

[ladajo]

Now you are talking about a bad public affairs campaign.
I think I spelled it wrong...

The link is relevant because it gives you background on the larger issue at hand, including your own argument. It is not theories, it is current real life debate and resolution.

One act is enough to make someone a combatant. In a conflict, again, civil law does not apply. That is part of what makes it a conflict. That is accepted as Customery International Law, including UN resolution, which I have already pointed out.

What you are arguing for can only be if we establish a One World Government, and then treat everything as law enforcement.

You can not seem to understand that states are beholden to each other as a courtesy, not because they have to be. When courtesy lapses, this is where conflict begins. This is why civil law does not apply.
These are not my ideas, these are based in international convention.

[TDPerk]

"I have not seen martial law declared all over the US, has it?"

I could be wrong, but I do not believe anyone seized in the United States is being held in Guantanamo. I believe terrorists taken domestically are all under indictment in the civil courts.

[MSimon]

ladajo says:

The problem I see today is to many folks arguing with partial knowledge and loud voices in arenas they do not fully get.

Really? Do tell. I'm all ears.

[Skipjack]

In May 2007, Martin Scheinin, a United Nations rapporteur on rights in countering terrorism, released a preliminary report for the United Nations Human Rights Council. The report stated the United States violated international law, particularly the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that the Bush Administration could not try such prisoners as enemy combatants in a military tribunal and could not deny them access to the evidence used against them.[109] Echo have been labeled "illegal" or "unlawful enemy combatants," but several observers such as the Center for Constitutional Rights and Human Rights Watch maintain that the United States has not held the Article 5 tribunals required by the Geneva Conventions.

[TDPerk]

"In May 2007, Martin Schein in, a United Nations rapporteur on rights in countering terrorism, released a preliminary report for the United Nations Human Rights Council."

I see no reason to accept his legitimacy to opine on the matter. In fact I know of no reason you should either. The UN lets Syria and Iran chair their human rights committee.

[Skipjack]

So the US is the only credible instance to define whether something or someone violates human rights?
Interesting idea!

[MSimon]

So the US is the only credible instance to define whether something or someone violates human rights?
Interesting idea!

Well no. I'd trust the Euros (mostly), the Ozzies, the Israelis (who are blocked by Arab autocrats).

I don't trust hard communist regimes, soft communist regimes, autocratic regimes, etc.

I must say, bad as you might consider the US on the topic - North Korea shouldn't be judging anyone re: human rights.

[ladajo]

ladajo says:

The problem I see today is to many folks arguing with partial knowledge and loud voices in arenas they do not fully get.

Really? Do tell. I'm all ears.

Funny, I gathered that most of your knowledge came from your ability to read and mine the internet. Where do your ears fit in? Oh, never mind, I get it, they help keep your head centered on the monitor.

In order to fully get something, it requires going out and doing it for yourself. Where did we ever let credibility develop from solely an ability to read? If you do not get drity in a topic, what do you really know? I think it is only what you can guess and interpret from the dirt of others.

It is like your Sun Tzu quote in the other thread, if you put it in the context of his physical being, you would understand that it entailed no such concept as mercy or compassion to avoid bloodshed. You took it out of context, and applied it inappropriately. His comment was based on an overiding cultural imperitive at the time to get someone else to do the dirty work for you. Granted, I was not Sun Tzu, but I have taken the time to not only study him, but his contemporaries, culture, history of the time, events, and what not in an attempt to better grasp what his points really were, not a mirroring interpretation as we in modern culture are so prone to do. It is like the simple understanding the the actual title of the Work is not what we think. It is not Sun Tzu - The Art of War as is greatly promulgated. Sun Tzu was not his name for starters, the actual translation means Sun, The Master. I leave the rest of it for you to internet mine.

[TDPerk]

"So the US is the only credible instance to define whether something or someone violates human rights?
Interesting idea!"

Interesting that I didn't say it. You are beginning to lie (again, I suspect), Skipjack.

[Skipjack]

Of course there are some people that wont recognize sarcasm when you rub their face in it...

[TDPerk]

When your sarcasm sounds just like supposedly serious people, I think that's a sarcasm fail...

So you're saying it's all a failed joke and you don't think the Guantanamo 'til death or victory storage of unlawful combatants is any violation of human rights?

[choff]

Perhaps their should be some differentiation in the way Taliban prisoners are treated as opposed to Al Queada prisoners. Basically, Al Queada fighters are all volunteers who had a choice. A lot of the Taliban end up in combat because some feudal village chief tells them they have to go out and fight Western soldiers.
Some Taliban start up as the surplus sons of polygamy dumped in a religious school where they spend all day memorizing the Koran before being sent off to the front, no real choice there.
These types of Taliban prisoner might be turned, but the hardcore terrorists should be left in prison for good. If you release them they're just going to take the next bus back to the front. If the other guy won't fight by the rules their's no sense following them yourself.