John Yamamoto-Wilson wrote:
> Thus far Kevin & I have bantered thus:
>
>>> 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,

So what?

> and in many cases not a shred of evidence has been put forward
> explaining why they have been detained.

What are some of the cases in which there has been not a shred of evidence?

>> 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).

And spoil all the fun?

>> 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.

Why?

> By all means, the authorities
> should be targetting very specifically the people behind the attacks.

And the demographic groups of said people. That's simply smart law
enforcement.

> 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.

Whole communities/ethic groups have not been attacked. No one has been
attacked.

>> 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?

Camp X-Ray has been blasted for harsh living conditions. I am waiting to see
proof of such a thing.

> 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? ;-(

Since these are matters of international law, they are written in various
conventions signed by a number of the planet's states. People who do not
want to remain outside the jurisdiction of these conventions should leave
Earth. Custom is another source of international law but the issues you are
talking about are generally covered by written agreements between states.

>> 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.

I see. Then I can safely assume that you will keep quiet until such evidence
does arise. When this evidence does arise, I will condemn those horrible
acts.

> 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

This page isn't particularly convincing, although I agree that the
"indescriminate [sic] and excessive use of force" is something to be
avoided.

> The Gulf War took place in the context of a far greater international
> consensus that such action was necessary.

How do you measure the international consensus? The coalition that fought in
the Iraq War contained more member states than the Gulf War.

> It may yet turn out that
> the whole basis for the Iraq War was in contravention of
> international law

How so? Did you read UNSCR 1441?

> (it's likely to hinge on whether those alleged WMDs
> ever turn up) -

That answers my question about whether or not you read UNSCR 1441.

> something Bush can pooh-pooh, but Blair is still
> sweating over.

He shouldn't.

>> 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 not a lawyer until next year.

> I am neither. You are on far
> stronger ground than I am here.

But you are the one making an affirmative claim. Please support it.

> 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,

Again I ask, which law?

> something which, according to
> you, is immoral.

When did I say that? I see you are still a bit confused about ends/means.

>> What law do you think the detentions may have violated?
>
> I know what laws have been *avoided*.

Which one? Not the Geneva Convention [sic].

> I know that the US government is
> denying the Guantanamo detainees prisoner of war status, which would
> give them rights under the Geneva Convention,

Actually, it would simply give them more rights. Unlawful combatants still
have rights under the GCs. The GCs enumerate four conditions that must be
met for a person to be considered a POW. The folks at GTMO do not meet them.

> and denying their
> constitutional rights by saying they are not Americans and not on on
> American soil.

They cannot be denied constitutional rights if they never had them. The
protection of rights under the US Constitution does not extent to non-US
citizens who are not in the US. This is why a Vietnamese citizen in Hanoi
cannot exercise his 1st Amendment right to free speech and why an
Argentinean in a Buenos Aires courtroom cannot assert his 5th Amendment
right of silence.

> But I repeat, you are a US citizen and a lawyer.

I'll be a lawyer next year.

> I am
> neither. All I can do is try to follow the debate.

Then keep up.

> 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

Actually, a number of federal cases have handed down opinions on the issue.
They all say the same thing. Gee, Chander says one thing, but every court
who has heard the issue says the opposite. I wonder who is right.

> http://www.hrw.org/us/usdom.php?theme=Guantanamo%20Detainees

Don't waste my time.

> 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

Yes, and did you know that they play touch football with their guards and
have VCRs/DVD players in their rooms? Apparently their favorite film to
watch is Tom Hanks's "Castaway".

> 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.

Aren't you a moral relativist? Sorry, but I never entertain morally based
arguments from relativists.

> 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.

There is no "international community". Which law(s) are you talking about?

> 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.

See above.

>> 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?

They could have turned their heads the other way. It also may interest you
to know that the Iraq War had the largest ever deployment of judge advocates
to the field to advise on RoE etc.

>> 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

I mentioned that case.

> 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 this makes the US different from what state? To whom do Cameroon and
Sweden hold themselves accountable? Please don't make me laugh by saying
"The UN". There is no world government, John. There is no world court with
compulsory jurisdiction.

> 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,

I had no idea that you were a comedian. What state on this planet completely
divulges its acts to the world?

> but
> in the present climate there are bound to be suspicions.

There are always suspicions.

-- 
Kevin Gowen