Thus far Kevin & I have bantered thus:

> >> Which one was the one who was being held for being Middle
> >> Eastern/Muslim?
> >
> > Playing with words.
>
> What words have I played with?

The ones in the dictionary.

Seriously, though....

> > Whatever the pretext on which they were held,
> > these people would not have been treated as they were if they had not
> > been Middle Eastern/Muslim.
>
> You know nothing of the kind.

Well, I wouldn't want to suggest that others have never come in for the same
kind of treatment. What I do know is that in the last couple of years such
people are under suspicion in a way they were not previously and that a
number of them have been arrested in FBI-led operations that would hardly
have taken place a couple of years ago, and in many cases not a shred of
evidence has been put forward explaining why they have been detained.

> Even if they were, I have to give you a big
> "so what?"

Why don't you just come right out and say you couldn't care less about them?
Then your opinions could safely be ignored (as in the case of the world's
poor).

> 83-year-old Belgian grandmothers and 8-year-old Chinese kids are
> not the ones trying to blow us up.

That kind of thinking worries me. By all means, the authorities should be
targetting very specifically the people behind the attacks. But they have to
be *very* careful not to attack whole communities or ethnic groups. That
path leads to large scale alienation and escalation of the problem.

> BTW, a recent report about our concentration camp down at GTMO shows that
> the average detainee has gained 13 pounds. Gee, those guys have it rough.

Well, and caged rabbits tend to be fatter than wild ones. So what? The
question is not whether keeping people in cages for a year adds to their
body weight, the question is whether paying $5000-$2000 to a warlord to turn
over a so-called "terrorist", keeping that person in a cage for a year
without charges, while the victim himself, all his friends and family and th
e government of his country insist that he is innocent, and finally freeing
him without explanation or apology constitute a due and acceptable process
of law. And, if it *is* legal, who the heck is making these laws and how
does one ensure that one remains outside their jurisdiction? ;-(

> BTW, I don't seem to recall you mentioning any allegations that would have
> been under the subject matter jurisdiction of the ICC.

These things take time to surface, given the rights governments have to keep
many of the relevant documents under wraps and the time it takes to put
together the necessary research to establish a case. As you probably know,
there is already a disturbing amount of evidence that the US acted in
contravention of international law in the Gulf War. Start here and follow
the links:

http://www.deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm

The Gulf War took place in the context of a far greater international
consensus that such action was necessary. It may yet turn out that the whole
basis for the Iraq War was in contravention of international law (it's
likely to hinge on whether those alleged WMDs ever turn up) - something Bush
can pooh-pooh, but Blair is still sweating over.

> >>> the law is immoral.
> >>
> >> Which law?
> >
> > The law of your country.
>
> We have more than one law. Which law(s) are immoral? Please name the
law(s)
> and then tell me what makes them immoral. I may agree with you...

That'll be the day!

> ...but first I
> have to know what law is being discussed. There are certainly immoral
> American laws. I just need to know which one is the topic of discussion.

Kevin, you are a US citizen and a lawyer. I am neither. You are on far
stronger ground than I am here. All I can do is look at particular
situations and say, "Is that legal? And, if it is legal, is it morally
right?"

You tell me all the things I am concerned about are legal. If you are
right - and I'm still not fully convinced of that, but *if* you are right -
then it seems to me that the law is open to the charge of letting the ends
justify the means, something which, according to you, is immoral.

> >>>> What law has been violated?
> >>>
> >>> You tell us. You're the lawyer.
> >>
> >> None.
> >
> > That remains to be seen,
>
> What law do you think the detentions may have violated?

I know what laws have been *avoided*. I know that the US government is
denying the Guantanamo detainees prisoner of war status, which would give
them rights under the Geneva Convention, and denying their constitutional
rights by saying they are not Americans and not on on American soil. But I
repeat, you are a US citizen and a lawyer. I am neither. All I can do is try
to follow the debate. The case against Guantanamo is widely discussed, and
you can see the general concerns by following such links as:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20020307_chander.html
http://www.hrw.org/us/usdom.php?theme=Guantanamo%20Detainees

One specific issue, which has come up in the last couple of weeks or so, is
that several children are also being detained at Guantanamo:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,942310,00.html

The fact that the US and Somalia are the only countries which have not
ratified the International Convention on the Rights of the Child may mean
that the US is not actually breaking the law here, but again, I'd say it's a
moral issue, even if it's not a legal one.

Finally, it may well turn out that the laws which were broken are laws which
the US does not recognise, but which the international community does. This
is all very well for the US given its present hegemony in world affairs, but
will doubtless become an issue if it ever loses that position.

> > I very much doubt that the US
> > authorities will bring charges against any of those who have been,
> > shall we say,
> > *overzealous* in their pursuit of their "duty".
>
> http://tinyurl.com/domr

Well, if soldiers are going to go boasting to the press about their
overzealousness it leaves the authorities with little choice, doesn't it?

> If you have information about actions of other US military personnel that
> may constitute war crimes, I am sure that the appropriate Judge Advocate
> General's Corps would love to hear about it. I want to hear about it, too.

Perhaps you and the Judge should keep an eye on such proceedings as the
following:

http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1433_A_867763_1_A,00.html

This may be the kind of thing you meant when you spoke of "frivolous" legal
action, and you may be right. As far as I'm concerned, it remains to be seen
(which is what I said before).

Just a final note. It may be that the US is perfectly justified (both
legally and morally) in all its actions and that its detractors simply
misunderstand it. However, it is pretty much impossible to verify that
without (1) accountability and (2) transparency. The US is currently holding
itself accountable to no one, and so much of what goes on is kept under a
shroud (keeping minors at Guantanamo and not actually telling anyone until
it leaked is just one example among many). If the US was dealing plainly
then the suspicions would not arise, but in the present climate there are
bound to be suspicions.

--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com