I get it, someone should just call Justice Kennedy and ask him what the answer is going to be....danmand said:
OTB
Guantanamo Khadr interrogations
- Thread starter danmand
- Start date
OTB
Actually he's not. The Geneva Conventions are pretty specific on what conditions have to apply for someone to be an enemy combatant. Things like they have to be in uniform or at least decorated with some sort of militia insignia, with a formal chain of command. The only exception is for people who take up arms to defend their own homes--but Khadr was a foreigner in Afghanistan.james t kirk said:
This may all be a flaw in the Geneva Convention. Perhaps it SHOULD be different, but it isn't different. As written Khadr does not fit the definition.
By law (ie: by the convention) the US has to treat him as if he does meet the standard and afford him all the rights of a prisoner of war right up until a "competent tribunal" rules on his status. There have been problems with that part--the US SC has not accepted the commissions set up so far as being "competent" by the American definition. Sooner or later, though, such a commission will pass muster and rule that he is NOT a prisoner of war.
At that point as far as the Geneva Conventions are concerned he can be summarily executed on the spot--the ordinary military justice meted out in a conflict zone for civilians caught committing grevious crimes like murder or treason.
No doubt if he is deemed to be in US territory it is his rights under US law that will prevent his summary execution, but it would not be a violation of international law if he were executed at that point. The Geneva Conventions offer protections only for combatants--no protection whatsoever is afforded by the convention to a civilian caught committing murder.
As was said, he was a foreigner there supporting a government/faction that represented some of the people. The US troops were foreigners there supporting a different government/faction that represented some of the people. I don't think either side has a case arguing who has more of a right to be there and armed.
There are definately grey areas about how to legally define Kadr's participation and the only problem that the US has is that they seem to be constantly playing with how to define him (and others) so that none of their definitions seem to ring true.
As for the child aspect, a 15 year old murderer in Canada can be tried as an adult and I don't think his parents 'brainwashing' him would be a significant mitigating factor. We are all 'brainwashed' by our parents/teacher/significant adults to follow their beliefs and moral codes so I doubt a defense of not him being responsible for his actions would go very far, either in the US or in Canada.
There are definately grey areas about how to legally define Kadr's participation and the only problem that the US has is that they seem to be constantly playing with how to define him (and others) so that none of their definitions seem to ring true.
As for the child aspect, a 15 year old murderer in Canada can be tried as an adult and I don't think his parents 'brainwashing' him would be a significant mitigating factor. We are all 'brainwashed' by our parents/teacher/significant adults to follow their beliefs and moral codes so I doubt a defense of not him being responsible for his actions would go very far, either in the US or in Canada.
I believe that you are off the mark on this one. It is likely closer to the truth that torture is as likely to elicit false information as it is to get accurate information.DonQuixote said:
I am sure that it is good at getting information. I believe that US airmen in Vietnam were told to give information freely (which would be out of date by the time of interrogation).
The caveat is that it gets false information when there is no relevant information to get and the torture victim is willing to say whatever they think is wanted.
But you said that it was wrong because it does not work. That is very differentDonQuixote said:
than saying that it is morally wrong. Which is it?
I was being logical. When you said that "It isn't acceptable because it doesn't work."
and "If it would save lives it would likely be accepted." ,
one can surmise that you have no moral problems with torture, ergo
anybody is free to use torture. Think about it: If someone invented a
torture method that worked, would it be morally acceptable?
PS: I discounted the explanation, that you are OK with the enemy being tortured,
but are against american soldiers being tortured.
That is hogwash. If you dislike someone, killing him works. Does not makeDonQuixote said:
it morally acceptable.
If you have no moral or ethical problem with torture, then I return to
my sad conclusion that you don't mind american soldiers being tortured.
