C.I.A. Sponsored Gulags?

[Guest]

I felt it important to address one or two other issues, then wait for replies.  First, I wrote:

“The point I’m trying to make is that nothing in the Conventions allows for the creation of a null category that the US can put any unpleasant individual into and do whatever it wants to them.  More strongly, it is illegal under international law, and if you want to throw it out, then go ahead.  But be aware of Powell’s concerns, that disregarding international law increases the likelihood of those actions to be done to US soldiers.  In addition, as I said, you abandon the rule of law, and thus, the US has lost in a significant way.”

RB responded:

“What about the muslim terrorists cutting people’s heads off?  Are you outraged about that or only when American’s may or may not do it to others?”

I’m using this as an illustration of logical leaps, and I’m talking not about the content of our post but the methodology and logic behind it.  Your criticism isn’t exactly directed against my argument.  You’re asking me a minor point, whether I think the protections of international law extend to people other than resisters.  To which of course I will say, yes.  Not really that hard a question.  But underlying your statement is an assumption that I’m creating a double standard, or, more tenuous but more troubling, I sense from your other posts as well that you feel a heinous action justifies any treatment at all towards those committing the offense.  Both of that misses the general logical point that Falk, Mary, and others have made, that international convention governing the treatment of combatants and civilians extends to everyone.  There are no legally permissible black holes.  If you want to challenge that point, you shouldn’t really appeal to the awful nature of the crime.  Action and status are not connected through punishment in international law.  Rather, status defines the category for assessing action.  Hence, an awful crime committed by a civilian is still an awful crime.  But it doesn’t allow a government to abrogate that individual’s non-combatant rights.  Likewise, a soldier who kills another soldier in combat is not guilty of murder because of combatant status.

And finally, a quick response.  You wrote:

“So please tell me…what else could have been done to free the Iraqi people except the removal of Hussein?  What else?  I’m not the one making the big leap here, I’m the one seeing the picture for what it is.  People like Hussein would never change.”

And you asked for a response about what else could be done.  Note, however, that you deviate significantly from the official stated reason for going to war:  trying to find and destroy NBC weapons and imminent capability.  The question was never whether it is a good thing for the Iraqi people to have freedom in some abstract sense.  Rather, it was what is the best method for getting to that point, which was the purpose of those policy questions I posed earlier.  As I’ve posted before, different policy goals imply different strategic positions.  If the point was to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people, then how about lifting the sanctions regime?  I’m not saying I would have advocated that, but that was an option.  If it was to find and destroy WMDs, how about a concerted effort to restart the inspections regime while avoiding questions over US intentions.  Bush should never have put “regime change” up in the front if he was serious about disarmament rather than liberation.  There were a host of options which could have been pursued, but when the US made it clear that such actions - which are not unreasonable - would not be contemplated, then international actors began getting worried.  Espousing a comprehensive preventive right to attack?  That threatens international and US interests implicitly.  Does that mean that China can simply go to war with Taiwan and argue that because it poses a threat to its territorial sovereignty, therefore the US and Japan should stay out?  It is a slippery slope entailing potentially huge costs.  I’ve reserved judgment on whether going to war was a good thing, but, as you can see, the situation is full of nuance and complexity.  As such, I don’t know how you can demonize critics as being unrealistic when they urge caution, or show that war was, probably at best, a mixed blessing for some Iraqis, and certainly hell for others.  It’s not a failure of fact and perspective, but rather a failure of analysis and logic.  That’s what I find troublesome with your arguments.

[Guest]

@221B:

Well, if you want to be that precise then you are correct.  As I have stated earlier I view this clause with an attempt to determine its intent.

If you compare that text to other text of the UN, then i think it really is that precise. I mean, treaties are written by lawyers usually, so i rather stick to the letters when interpreting it. :)

And Chengora, i find it laudable that you tried to understand RB concept of logic.