Remove Advertisements

Egyptian police "Virginity Checks?"

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Egyptian police "Virginity Checks?"

Postby theckhd » Sat Jun 04, 2011 7:34 pm

Fivelives wrote:A lot of people are confusing civil liberties with human rights.

No, I mean human rights. Admittedly this is Wikipedia, but...

Wikipedia, Guantanamo Bay wrote:Red Cross inspectors and released detainees have alleged acts of torture,[46][47] including sleep deprivation, beatings and locking in confined and cold cells. Human rights groups argue that indefinite detention constitutes torture.[who?]

The use of Guantánamo Bay as a military prison has drawn criticism from human rights organizations and others, who cite reports that detainees have been tortured[48] or otherwise poorly treated.
"Theck, Bringer of Numbers and Pounding Headaches," courtesy of Grehn|Skipjack.
MATLAB 5.x, Simcraft 6.x, Call to Arms 6.0, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
User avatar
theckhd
Moderator
 
Posts: 7753
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: Harrisburg, PA

Re: Egyptian police "Virginity Checks?"

Postby Dantriges » Sun Jun 05, 2011 1:06 am

Fivelives wrote:It was used solely because it was impossible for them to get messages out. The idea was that if we cut their lines of communication it would make it impossible for them to plan new attacks. Like I said - good idea, horrible implementation.


At least the US government argued that Giantanomo Bay is not part of the US and part of the legal system of the US. http://docs.google.com/gview?url=http:/ ... hrome=true
page 3 to 5.

And protection from arbitrary detention is actually a human right. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publicat ... ev.1en.pdf Page 3, the paragraph starting with article 3.
Dantriges
 
Posts: 1252
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 12:39 am

Re: Egyptian police "Virginity Checks?"

Postby Fridmarr » Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:05 pm

Dantriges wrote:I think the only repetition of the Stanford prison experiment was one in britain conducted in cooperation with the BBC. :roll:
hey had more stringent rules and learned from the Stanford experiment, but well the presence of the cameras probably resulted in people behaving a bit better because their friends and relatives could see them later. Still seems the whole thing broke down after 6 days in a revolution and the rebels, a mixture of prisoners and guards wanted to establish a stricter system after revolution. The psychologist conducting the experiment stopped it early after 6 days.

He wrote about his theory and his criticism of the orignal experiment here: http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/archi ... cleID=1291
I agree with him somewhat but still think that the guy who led the first experiment was at least partially right, in his criticism that he called the new one just a reality TV show.
It probably wasn´t, the BBC documentaries we get over here, are quite well done, but the presence of cameras is a disturbing influence.

Gitmo was a wrong idea right from the beginning because it was built there to circumvent US law and law enforcement with a technicality.
A government should try to work within and uphold the law and not exploit it.
OK I could be wrng but AFAIK itwas built there because it was at a US military base under complete US control but outside US jurisdiction.
Your reasoning behind the why of gitmo is obviously not correct. There is plenty of precedent for dealing with enemy combatants outside of US law (well it's still US law, but under the military system). In fact, the detention procedures that are in place are quite obviously not out of US law inasmuch as they've twice been ruled unconstitutional by the US supreme court in split decisions. Each time it resulted in procedural changes, including action by congress to authorize the correction. It's not operating outside the law nor exploiting it.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9665
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Egyptian police "Virginity Checks?"

Postby Fivelives » Mon Jun 06, 2011 2:39 am

I didn't mean to say there aren't human rights violations involved in the system - like I said, they should have at least followed the Geneva and Hague conventions as to how to deal with prisoners of war.

Things like being arrested without probable cause, warrantless search & seizures, things of that nature - those are civil liberties, not human rights. People commonly cite "oh, but you're holding them without a trial and not letting them have a lawyer, that's violating their rights!" as though legal representation and adjudication are human rights rather than civil liberties.

People have certain rights (human rights), but liberties are exactly that - freedoms that apply to each country individually. In the US, we have the "right" to be free from unjustified search & seizure (4th amendment to the US Constitution), the "right" to be free from self-incrimination (5th amendment to the US Constitution), and the "right" to a trial before a jury of our peers (6th amendment to the US Constitution). We also have the "right" to remain silent and the "right" to an attorney (Miranda v. United States). Perhaps people are confused by the wording?

Just because we may be shocked at another culture's "rights" (such as the commonly cited "right" to burn your wife alive for the crime of disobedience) doesn't mean that we have the "right" to judge that society by our own system of measurement. We also don't have the "right" to force their societies to conform to OUR rules.

Also, holding people indefinitely doesn't exactly constitute torture - and whoever suggested that needs to get their heads on straight. Prisoners of War are held until the war is over, period. It's not "indefinite", it just "hasn't ended yet".

Vis-a-vis arguing that Gitmo "isn't part of the United States" is, on its face, wrong. All United States military installations are technically part of the United States and subject to US laws. For instance, the legal age to drink in Germany is 16. In the US, it's 21. Try going to a bar on a US military base in Germany as an 18 year old, and see how many alcoholic drinks they'll serve you. That argument seems like more of a shotgun or Hail Mary approach to jurisprudence - trying to throw so much reasonable-sounding chaff in a judge's (or jury's) face that your argument seems overwhelming. "If they can come up with THIS many reasons, then they MUST be right" is a desperate play (or in this case, perhaps a delaying tactic), and it usually doesn't work - when used on the US Supreme Court, it will never work. The USSC has as much time as it deems necessary to rule - throwing up a lot of arguments just increases the time the judges spend deliberating their ruling.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 3108
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Egyptian police "Virginity Checks?"

Postby Dantriges » Mon Jun 06, 2011 3:40 am

Considering that the government used the argument of location in the Supreme Court, that US courts and law doesn´t apply there, I think that at the time of the establishment of the Guantanamo prison the idea was in their head. The Supreme court saw it differently or at least 5 of 9 judges saw it differently so changes had to be made.
It seems that the eecutive branch at least tried to keep the judicial system out of it and failed. I didn´t pull it ouf of thin air, and I am pretty sure that it was on shaky grounds from the beginning, it was the US government making up that claim.

Well at least they could use it or used it as an argument to delay the court.
You don´t find it a bit concerning that the US government plays stall tactics on the judicial branch? I don´t know the exact wording of the oath the president takes but isn´t upholding and abiding to the law part of it.

They could have established a prison on american soil as well. A location a bit more remote or even on a military base and set up a screen of counterintelligence outside the fence and in nearby population centers should be enough with the added benefit of capturing/watching couriers and intercepting or even altering messages from the few guys who are actually terrorists instead of guys captured by bounty hunters in a foreign country.

Also the US has signed and ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm
Read article 9. Article 1 of this part includes all human beings. Yes I know that the US tries to redress the condition and has provided some means for inmates to redress the situation as stated in number 4, but I wouldn´t call it in a timely fashion. They don´t even know where to release the inmates to.

Article 9

1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.

2. Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.

3. Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgement.

4. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful.

5. Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation.


In the charte of Universal human rights http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLU ... penElement: Article 3 (security of person), 6(recognition as a person before the law), article 7 (all are equal before the law without any discrimination), article 9 (no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile), article 10 (everyone is entitled in full equality to a hearing by an impartial and independant tribunal in the determination...of any criminal charges against him).
So most civil liberties you named are actal human rights and well the rest follow from article 7, that all are equal before the law. So if you bring in foreigners, it´s their right to be judged like a U.S. citizen and enjoy the same rights and protection that the law extends to U.S. citizens.

Just because several countries are ignoring them on a daily basis doesn´t mean the US government has to join in with the bullies.
And well War on terror is an artificial construction. Well seems that normal law enforcement procedures were unable to stop it so this construction was made. Well at least you have to set some parameters when this "war" ends. When the last terror cell working against the US is extinguished? That´s hardly verfiable. There could be a cell still out there, keep the Prisoners. The released inmates could form a terror cell, keep the prisoners...
There was never anything said how you measure success or failure in this war, well terrorism has more in common with criminal bahaviour than regular warfare.
Dantriges
 
Posts: 1252
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 12:39 am

Re: Egyptian police "Virginity Checks?"

Postby Fivelives » Mon Jun 06, 2011 5:50 am

This will be a novel. TL;DR at the end

Jurisdiction and application of legal systems

So most civil liberties you named are actal human rights and well the rest follow from article 7, that all are equal before the International(sic) law.

You forgot a word there - this is an international treaty, and therefore international custom - but not law. The International Criminal Court only has jurisdiction over contracting parties to the Rome Treaty and those nations which actively participate in the ICC itself - which the US doesn't. I'll get to that in a bit.

If you are not a citizen of the United States, you are not bound by our legal system. If you commit a (non-capital) crime as a non-citizen, you are deported to your home country and, if an extradition treaty exists, then the likelihood is high that the US State Department will have a say in your trial and sentencing in your home country. It then follows that if you are not bound by our legal system, then our civil liberties also do not apply to you - most notably the 6th amendment or right to trial by jury. You will still be investigated by our police, who are still bound by the 4th and 5th amendments, but you're not eligible for Miranda rights. Instead of calling a lawyer, they call your embassy, who then decides whether or not to send an embassy representative to act as a lawyer.

In no way are foreign citizens granted any of the protections of a native or naturalized American citizen by the American justice system. The big play with the USSC is on the part of "public interest" groups such as the ACLU and humanitarian groups such as the Red Cross and other charitable organizations. That is the only recourse granted to them, and it still doesn't matter in a time of war. It may count afterwards as evidence if someone wants to bring the US before a war crimes tribunal, but until then, our laws and legal system have absolutely zero bearing on how our military conducts a war.

During wartime, local/federal laws obviously cannot apply. For one, we're actively and in a premeditated fashion, killing people. That's the definition of murder in the first degree - obviously, you can't try a soldier for murder of enemy combatants. That's ridiculous on numerous levels. For another, there is an international court that has jurisdiction in the case of universal human rights - it's run by the UN. That said, however, the Geneva Conventions 1-4 take precedent during wartime, with war crimes being resolved afterward.

It all boils down to one simple fact: United States law has zero bearing on wartime conduct until after the fact, and it's questionable whether the US will have jurisdiction even then considering that there are higher courts that take precedent. It's the same philosophy of a state/federal court system, where the US Attorney can step in and take jurisdiction where it applies, if they want to.

What are Human Rights, and who enforces them?

Now, as far as the UN Charter on Human Rights - there's an interesting clause in the GC III and IV General Provisions:
Clause 2 of the Geneva Conventions 3 and 4 General Provisions wrote:Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

Since al'Qaeda was disavowed by all of the countries we've been operating in, effectively "disowning" them as citizens, the terrorist network is considered not to be a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. Therefore, the protections provided to prisoners of war do not apply to them. If they aren't going to grant us the benefit of the Geneva Conventions, then we're not obligated to grant it to them.

The US isn't a contracting state of the ICC (International Criminal Court), and "The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes." (Rome treaty, part 2, article 8, subsection 1) Since it will be rather difficult, if not impossible, to prove that the US Government was behind the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, we can't even be tried for war crimes. Do I personally believe that the government was behind the war crimes? I'd like to hope not, but I have my doubts.

The US Government and "stall tactics" in the USSC

This happens a lot more than you might think. It's just the way the game is played. People are either jockeying for the most airtight, loophole-free decision possible, or they're hoping to delay the verdict so they can put some other plan into play when the decision that the USSC will come to is inevitable and very obvious. It's also used unscrupulously by defendants who are relying on the person complaining to die or something, which could sometimes render the ruling invalid. That's just how politics works, and the judicial branch of the government isn't under any magical "anti-political" shield or something. Look at the stall tactics employed to block the Sotomayer appointment to the bench for recent examples not connected with this.

Also, it's not the executive branch doing the stalling. It's the legislative and judicial branches themselves - so it's not something you can exactly pin on Obama. Plus, the president in charge when the case originally went to the USSC was Bush Jr. I'm pretty anti-Obama, but I like to at least TRY and keep my criticisms valid.

So why didn't we establish military prisons somewhere in remote locations in the US?

The main reason is expediency. Gitmo and Abu Ghraib already existed and fit the need perfectly. Instead of wasting months and billions of dollars to build the facilities, using pre-existing facilities made more sense. Also, the security issue. Even in remote locations, it's still possible for security to be breached. In the case of Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, they had absolutely impenetrable security, because we could absolutely control access to the prisoners. They could be treated (relatively) humanely as "prisoners" instead of having to keep them in the equivalent of supermax solitary confinement with no yard or group mess hall access. Even the guards were trustworthy, because the guards lived in the closed complex where the prisons were located, and so even if one (or more) of them was subverted or turned, they couldn't get unmonitored access to the mainland regardless.

What exactly does Article 9 cover, and how are we violating it?

Going paragraph by paragraph:

1. People are being arrested on suspicion of terrorist activities.
2. They are informed of such when they're being arrested.
3. They're brought before a military tribunal for arraignment, where they're (inevitably) deemed flight risks. This one's another gray area that we're operating in - it all depends on the definition of "promptly". There is nothing saying that we can't detain them while we perform our investigation, if the tribunal deems that they are a clear and present danger - it happens all the time, even in our civilian criminal courts, and in the military courts, it's more common than not for suspects to be detained while the investigation takes place if there's a clear and present danger.
4. Again, there's nothing specifying a time frame - just that they're entitled to take proceedings before a court. Gray areas abound.
5. The lawfulness of the arrest or detention haven't been proven yet (in most cases). In the cases where people were arrested on suspicion, then released, they're compensated.

We're a country that likes to "declare war" on ephemeral things

The war on drugs, the war on illiteracy, the war on cancer... the list goes on and on. The only difference here is that the war on terror does have a clear goal - it's impossible to "eradicate terrorism", but it is possible to continue fighting until all opposition has stopped, or it becomes clear that we've eliminated the al'Qaeda network leadership from the top down. Is it the right thing to do? I doubt it - our public image is bad enough as it stands, even without this whole debacle we're currently embroiled in. Is it what we've CHOSEN to do? It definitely looks that way.

In closing, aka the TL;DR section:

We're operating in a lot of gray areas. We're "technically" not violating any of the treaties or conventions that we're a constituent of, but we're violating the HELL out of them in spirit. We've either gotten very lucky, or have planned things out very skillfully so that this remains the case. The Hague and Geneva Conventions take main precedent, but they don't apply. So then the International Criminal Court comes into play, but again - we're not subject to their jurisdiction. Then it falls to the local courts, which have no jurisdiction during times of war or on any war crimes that may be committed during that war, except where US citizens are perpetrating crimes on other US citizens. And that's not exactly happening now. Even then, the Uniform Code of Military Justice would apply rather than the civilian laws.

Is what we're doing the right thing? That comes down to personal opinion - and my personal opinion is that I'm neither going to vindicate, nor condemn our behavior. Is what we're doing the necessary thing? Again - that's a personal opinion. The United States is neither technically wrong, NOR technically correct, so one opinion is just as valid as the other, and any number of proofs can be brought to support that opinion.

These are situations that the applicable laws were never even considering when they got laid down. Hell, technically, the UN Human Rights charter only applies to the members of the UN countries. And when we got all of the countries involved to disown the al'Qaeda terrorist network, they're technically no longer citizens of ANY country. They've been expatriated, and so none of the applicable wartime laws apply to them for any number of reasons. This post is already long enough without delving into THAT particular morass.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 3108
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Egyptian police "Virginity Checks?"

Postby Candiru » Mon Jun 06, 2011 6:26 am

The main difference is prisoners of war are never uncertain, they wear a uniform of the country they are fighting for. They give their service number, name and rank when captured. They do not contest being an enemy when captured, but have generally surrendered in battle.

A civilian / terrorist / spy will not be in uniform, and will deny being a fighter if captured. How do you tell them apart? Perhaps some form for trial, where evidence can be used to persuade a jury as to their guilt or innocence?
Image
Candiru
 
Posts: 2479
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 12:21 pm

Re: Egyptian police "Virginity Checks?"

Postby Fivelives » Mon Jun 06, 2011 6:39 am

They're given arraignment by tribunal, where the "evidence" as it stands is provided. There's a very BROAD definition of "evidence" though. It only has to be enough to sustain the suspicion that the person in question presents a clear and present danger to the US in order to qualify for remand pending investigation. Basically, we're denying them bail while the prosecution gathers solid evidence, or in the rare case that the tribunal finds there are no grounds for detainment, they're released and sent on their way.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 3108
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Egyptian police "Virginity Checks?"

Postby Brekkie » Mon Jun 06, 2011 8:18 am

Well done Fivelives, bravo.
Theckhd wrote:big numbers are the in-game way of expressing that Brekkie's penis is huge.
Brekkie
 
Posts: 953
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Egyptian police "Virginity Checks?"

Postby Fridmarr » Mon Jun 06, 2011 9:09 am

Dantriges wrote:Considering that the government used the argument of location in the Supreme Court, that US courts and law doesn´t apply there, I think that at the time of the establishment of the Guantanamo prison the idea was in their head. The Supreme court saw it differently or at least 5 of 9 judges saw it differently so changes had to be made.
It seems that the eecutive branch at least tried to keep the judicial system out of it and failed. I didn´t pull it ouf of thin air, and I am pretty sure that it was on shaky grounds from the beginning, it was the US government making up that claim. (snip)
I suspect Fivelives covered what I'm about to say, but I didn't feel up to reading beyond the tldr summary. There is a lot of gray area around gitmo and plenty of cases to be made against it, but you really are barking up the wrong tree with this angle.

Anyhow, the location argument of course was used to refute the claim that the detainee' attorneys were making about access to civilian courts. It's not irrelevant that these folks are suspected of committing crimes in the theater of war on foreign soil. Keep in mind though that even US soldiers don't get access to civilian courts. Our civilian courts are simply not designed to handle these types of "crimes".

Also, the 5-9 decision actually affirmed the use of the military system, it just said (and even the majority admit rather dubiously) that the tribunals were not properly following UCMJ (military court system) protocol. They basically took a law that was designed to require different branches of the US military (army, navy, air force, marines) follow consistent trial standards across each branch, and extended that to the detainees.

Suggesting that the administration wanted to keep these tribunals out of the civilian courts is obviously true, but the suggestion that that decision is an attempt to avert US law is obviously false.

Determining what to do with these folks, who are at the convergence of several types of international law, civilian law, laws of powers, and military law is not simple. Both candidates running for president in '08 made closing gitmo a priority, but things are just not that simple and it's not likely to be closed anytime soon.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9665
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Egyptian police "Virginity Checks?"

Postby Dantriges » Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:06 am

Ah thanks, was a bit shaky ground to begin with deriving more from the declaration. Still the US signed and ratified the treaties, so it´s more or less a promise to abide to them. Still the declaration was written 1948, the signatories claimed them as universal applying to every human, regardless of nation or if he was disowned by his home state and the article makes no mention of international law, only law. As there was no international justice court at this time, probably the national judicial branch was meant. Could be wrong but seems to me that you are still human even if not part of a member state and your human rights are still protected. The signing of the declaration was also a declaration by the signing government to recognize it, even if you are from Made-up-from-thin-airistan (had to invent something, not looking up what state is not a member), that is not a signatory.

Oh and a state who signed and abides the declaration can´t just take away your nationality. You have a right to it.

Also it´s questionable if the people were actually informed that they were arrested as terrorists. Quite a few were turned over by extralegal people or laenforcement in other countries wanting to make some quick bucks. And there were quite a few stall tactics employed.

And well Gitmo having a convenient facility so you don´t have to spend money. Well the first facility could hold a few hundred people until Halliburton built a new one for a billion dollars. At this time at least you could have built it somewhere else.

The whole declaration of war on ephemeral things. I agree it´s probably not the right thing to do. And I haven´t heard that there was ever an objective stated when war is over. It reminds me of the bnovel "1984" from Orwell where the nation states were embroiled in continual warfare so people were preoccupied with the war, not noticing that their own government was screwing them over (well there were other things too) ot the time honored tradition of politicians to use foreign successes and issues to cover domestic deficiencies.

And well Stall tactics before the USSC. I personally find it disgusting even if it´s common practice. Especially the government should try to achieve a higher standard instead of working the system. And well I don´t blame it on Obama. He more or less inherited the whole mess from the previous one and has to figure out how to get out there. Also the ruling from the USSC was from the time of the Bush administration.

My personal opinion is that we should slowly move forward not backward. "Realpolitik" or political pragmatism, working the system and manipulation on an international level fired backwards on Germany when someone less skilled than Bismarck took over and resulted in WWI and seems the whole war on terror fires back on the US as well.
Dantriges
 
Posts: 1252
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 12:39 am

Re: Egyptian police "Virginity Checks?"

Postby Fridmarr » Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:44 am

Dantriges wrote:And well Gitmo having a convenient facility so you don´t have to spend money. Well the first facility could hold a few hundred people until Halliburton built a new one for a billion dollars. At this time at least you could have built it somewhere else.
First, what is your source on that? It seems contrary to everything I've found on the matter. Secondly, it is far more an issue of time than money. Thirdly, logistically gitmo is still a terrific location. There's really no compelling reason to build it elsewhere, and lots to keep it there.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9665
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Egyptian police "Virginity Checks?"

Postby Fivelives » Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:57 am

The International Criminal Court was formed in 2002 to handle war crimes and other international violations that happened after the court was formed. Pretty much, it acts as a neutral regulatory body to make rulings on the GC and GP. Unfortunately, it only holds jurisdiction over governments that recognize it and actively participate in their tribunals - since the US only participates as an observer, they have no way of enforcing anything on us, or even forcing us to appear.

And yes, states are full well within their rights to expatriate/banish people. Just because we don't do it often doesn't mean it's not doable. Your nationality is NOT a right, it's a privilege. If you choose not to follow the laws and customs of your state, your state can say "GTFO AND DON'T COME BACK!" There's a long and rich history of banishment stretching as far back as recorded history.

Treaties are only enforceable when dealing with the signatory parties. If I were to, say, sign a treaty with Brekkie saying that I wouldn't punch him in the nose, and if I did punch him in the nose he could punish me by punching me in the nose - it wouldn't matter if I punched, say, Fridmarr in the nose because he's not involved in the treaty. The only countries that recognize the human rights are those that are in the UN. It's a gray area, but technically it's "okay". Like I said above, we're skating along on gray areas and fuzzy wordings. We're also not technically violating the declaration points that you raised earlier, either. Is it scoring us brownie points? Likely not.

As far as the arrest information - would you just take it on faith that everyone who's arrested for it is informed what they're being arrested for? Even if the people that are turned over by other bodies weren't informed when they were originally taken away, they're still explicitly told why they're being arrested the instant they get to Gitmo. "Hi, welcome to Guantanamo Bay. You've just been arrested on suspicion of terrorism. Here's your jumpsuit, and there's the door to the tribunal waiting room where you'll be inprocessed (booked) while you wait for your arraignment". We can't be held accountable for other people's failures.

And you overlooked the second reason why we use facilities Gitmo/Abu Ghraib - security. The people who actually ARE terrorists are generally fairly wealthy - enough to turn your average prison guard's head for something "innocent" like dialing a specific number and asking for a name. We can completely cut off the facilities that we have set up from all outside contact. That's important when messages can be as simple and innocuous as dialing 123-456-7890 and asking for John, then hanging up when they say "sorry, wrong number." Remember, if you're on base in the states, the military cannot prevent you from contacting the outside world. In foreign countries though, they sure as hell can - especially at ThreatCon Charlie or Delta. See: http://www.defense.gov/specials/threatcon.html for a brief description of different threat conditions (ThreatCon). We can't maintain ThreatCon Charlie or Delta for extended periods of time on US soil. Not only would it kill morale among the troops, being restricted to base unless given express orders otherwise, but it would also enrage the local population that oftentimes relies on the military base for economic survival.

I didn't say whether or not declaring war on ephemeral things was good or bad - just that it's an American quirk. We like to declare war on things, no matter how silly or un-winnable they might be.

I was wondering when someone was going to bring up Orwell here.

Regarding the USSC, the government has to work within the system that the people have created. They don't have the option of going outside the system to get things done right. It's neither good nor bad, it just is.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 3108
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Egyptian police "Virginity Checks?"

Postby Dantriges » Mon Jun 06, 2011 11:37 am

Fivelives wrote:And yes, states are full well within their rights to expatriate/banish people. Just because we don't do it often doesn't mean it's not doable. Your nationality is NOT a right, it's a privilege. If you choose not to follow the laws and customs of your state, your state can say "GTFO AND DON'T COME BACK!" There's a long and rich history of banishment stretching as far back as recorded history.


Hm k, I´ve reread the article in question, it states nationality can´t be arbitrarily revoked (oh wow, I can thik of getting around this in so many ways). The only thing you have a right to is a nationality not necessarily your original one. Sorry I misremembered.
But unless I am completely wrong the document includes every human being and not just members of signing states. It is more or less a statment. Every one signed thinks that the rights in the documents applies to all humans, humans being every member of the species human. It´s not a treaty that declares, I handle your citizens well when they fall into my hands if you are a signatory.

Treaties are only enforceable when dealing with the signatory parties. If I were to, say, sign a treaty with Brekkie saying that I wouldn't punch him in the nose, and if I did punch him in the nose he could punish me by punching me in the nose - it wouldn't matter if I punched, say, Fridmarr in the nose because he's not involved in the treaty. The only countries that recognize the human rights are those that are in the UN. It's a gray area, but technically it's "okay". Like I said above, we're skating along on gray areas and fuzzy wordings. We're also not technically violating the declaration points that you raised earlier, either. Is it scoring us brownie points? Likely not.


Well unless it´s in some commentaries it´s a treaty to respect this rights that are granted to every human regardless of nationality. If we use your example. Let´s say we make an agreement to punch no maintankadin poster in the nose. You and I sign it, Fridmarr doesn´t. I am still violating the treaty if I punch Fridmarr even if he didn´t sign it and if there is a punishment clause you could enact it on Fridmarr´s behalf. The subject of the declaration is all humans not all humans belonging to signatories. If some alien species would show up and sign it in its current form, a signatory could still commit anything they want on members of the foreign species without violating the declaration (ok probably not a good idea), unless they are somehow humans.

I was wondering when someone was going to bring up Orwell here.

Yeah, I felt uncomfortable mentioning it. Well it was the best example I could think of and the point wasn´t the usual one about surveillance.Well, forget about it. mentioning Orwell was not a good idea at all.

Regarding the USSC: the government probably knew that the court would dismiss their arguments and wouldn´t agree on it. So why start the whole thing then. I find it a little bit odd, that the government considers violating the law in the first place or at least work in very gray areas, then stall the judicial system. They should probably press on the matter as fast as possible instead, so you have a ruling regarding the gray areas and operate in safe areas again. It´s likely that a government operates in a gray area, perhaps even violating its own constitution or law in the process. The executive and judicative branch should then get a formal ruling on the matter instead of trying to postpone the issue with legalities and throwing legalese chaff in the face of the judges. That more or less shows they knew it was in violation of their own law and didn´t want to get called out on it. And that´s an attitude in a government I am not comfortable with.

Didn´t answer everything. Assume that I concede the point, think it´s a matter of opinion or don´t have conclusive evidence that says otherwise.
Dantriges
 
Posts: 1252
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 12:39 am

Re: Egyptian police "Virginity Checks?"

Postby Fivelives » Mon Jun 06, 2011 12:32 pm

An unenforceable right is not a right at all. I can jump up and down all I want claiming that I have the right to bang a solid dozen supermodels daily at my whim, but can I enforce it?

Probably not.

al'Qaeda has no nationality. They were exiled from Sudan in 1996 and granted asylum in the then Taliban controlled Afghanistan. Once the Taliban was taken out of power, that asylum was revoked. There goes the "right" to a nationality (you're thinking of article 15 of the UN declaration of human rights).

Other unenforceable "rights" granted by the declaration:

Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Unenforceable: this "right" does not apply to convicts. "Everyone" indeed?

Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Unenforceable: military training outside the US is OFTEN degrading and even MORE often, cruel.

Article 6: Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Unenforced: Apartheid, anyone? How about our own segregation?

Article 7: All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Unenforced: Apartheid again

Article 9: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Unenforceable: what exactly do you think the INS is for, anyway? They're there to exile people (deportation is a form of exile)

I could go on and on, but I'm sure you can understand where I'm coming from here. The UN Declaration of Human Rights isn't worth the paper it's written on.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 3108
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


Remove Advertisements

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest