NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090221/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/terror_detainees

Obama backs Bush: No rights for Bagram prisoners

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration, siding with the Bush White House, contended Friday that detainees in Afghanistan have no constitutional rights.

In a two-sentence court filing, the Justice Department said it agreed that detainees at Bagram Airfield cannot use U.S. courts to challenge their detention. The filing shocked human rights attorneys.

"The hope we all had in President Obama to lead us on a different path has not turned out as we'd hoped," said Tina Monshipour Foster, a human rights attorney representing a detainee at the Bagram Airfield. "We all expected better."

The Supreme Court last summer gave al-Qaida and Taliban suspects held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the right to challenge their detention. With about 600 detainees at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan and thousands more held in Iraq, courts are grappling with whether they, too, can sue to be released.

Three months after the Supreme Court's ruling on Guantanamo Bay, four Afghan citizens being detained at Bagram tried to challenge their detentions in U.S. District Court in Washington. Court filings alleged that the U.S. military had held them without charges, repeatedly interrogating them without any means to contact an attorney. Their petition was filed by relatives on their behalf since they had no way of getting access to the legal system.

The military has determined that all the detainees at Bagram are "enemy combatants." The Bush administration said in a response to the petition last year that the enemy combatant status of the Bagram detainees is reviewed every six months, taking into consideration classified intelligence and testimony from those involved in their capture and interrogation.

After Barack Obama took office, a federal judge in Washington gave the new administration a month to decide whether it wanted to stand by Bush's legal argument. Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd says the filing speaks for itself.

"They've now embraced the Bush policy that you can create prisons outside the law," said Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who has represented several detainees.

The Justice Department argues that Bagram is different from Guantanamo Bay because it is in an overseas war zone and the prisoners there are being held as part of a military action. The government argues that releasing enemy combatants into the Afghan war zone, or even diverting U.S. personnel there to consider their legal cases, could threaten security.

The government also said if the Bagram detainees got access to the courts, it would allow all foreigners captured by the United States in conflicts worldwide to do the same.

It's not the first time that the Obama administration has used a Bush administration legal argument after promising to review it. Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder announced a review of every court case in which the Bush administration invoked the state secrets privilege, a separate legal tool it used to have lawsuits thrown out rather than reveal secrets.

The same day, however, Justice Department attorney Douglas Letter cited that privilege in asking an appeals court to uphold dismissal of a suit accusing a Boeing Co. subsidiary of illegally helping the CIA fly suspected terrorists to allied foreign nations that tortured them.

Letter said that Obama officials approved his argument.


I'm beyond speechless. Rage doesn't even come close to what I feel. Everyone (including me) who was stupid enough to vote for him has been betrayed. The only thing to say in his defence is that McCain probably would have nuked Iran by now like he "joked" about during the campaign. What says NSG? (braces self for the "He's finally doing the right thing" and the "told you so" crowds)

in b4 shitstorm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090221/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/terror_detainees




I'm beyond speechless. Rage doesn't even come close to what I feel. Everyone (including me) who was stupid enough to vote for him has been betrayed. The only thing to say in his defence is that McCain probably would have nuked Iran like he "joked" about during the campaign. What says NSG? (braces self for the "He's finally doing the right thing" and the "told you so" crowds)

*sigh*

Like the boy that cried "wolf," this the umpteenth time you've screamed "BETRAYAL" and your credibility is thin.

Regardless, as the article explains this is a TWO SENTENCE FILING and there are very legitimate distinctions between Bagram Air Force base and Gitmo. We are talking about prisoners seized in an active war zone. Existing SCOTUS caselaw makes just such a distinction.

I see the difference here. The Gitmo detainees are one United States soil, and must therefore be given constitutional rights. The detainees in Bagram are being held in a foreign nation, and an active war zone. Legal, but perhaps not right.

End the Afghanistan war. Obama and his supporters love this ridiculous war more than the proverbial fat kid loves cake.

I'm beyond speechless.
It is, sadly, hardly surprising.

End the Afghanistan war. Obama and his supporters love this ridiculous war more than the proverbial fat kid loves cake.

why? The Afgani war is the right war to fight. Those responsible for 9-11 mostly operate in the area.

Rolling squid;14533987']Legal, but perhaps not right.

But that's the thing, these guys are experts on the constitution. This means that when they interpret the constitution, they do so impartially, and based on what it actually SAYS, they can't just erroneously interpret the constitution because it doesn't feel 'right'.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090221/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/terror_detainees




I'm beyond speechless. Rage doesn't even come close to what I feel. Everyone (including me) who was stupid enough to vote for him has been betrayed. The only thing to say in his defence is that McCain probably would have nuked Iran by now like he "joked" about during the campaign. What says NSG? (braces self for the "He's finally doing the right thing" and the "told you so" crowds)

It was not stupid to vote for him, both because we couldn't know for sure he would do something like this, and because McCain would be immeasurably worse, especially if he died and let Palin in.

However, if this is correct, and we're getting the full picture, then it is a betrayal both of his supporters and his duty. Not very surprising perhaps, given the tendency for government to accumulate rather than give up power, but a betrayal nonetheless.

But rather than ranting at the air, why don't you do something about it? Contact Congressmen and the President, and remind them why we voted them in. Of course, I expect a barrage of snide, cynical responses dismissing Obama, America, and Democracy, but at the end of the day we have two choices: believe that we can do nothing and sit their while democracy erodes one bit at a time, or keep trying to defend it as best we can.

Finally, I would remind you that the Obama Presidency is still new. Their is still time for him to reverse this policy, but we should excercise our right to free expression to urge him to do so.

...but at the end of the day we have two choices: believe that we can do nothing and sit their while democracy erodes one bit at a time, or keep trying to defend it as best we can.
What a poor dilemma.

It was not stupid to vote for him, both because we couldn't know for sure he would do something like this, and because McCain would be immeasurably worse, especially if he died and let Palin in.

However, if this is correct, and we're getting the full picture, then it is a betrayal both of his supporters and his duty. Not very surprising perhaps, given the tendency for government to accumulate rather than give up power, but a betrayal nonetheless.

But rather than ranting at the air, why don't you do something about it? Contact Congressmen and the President, and remind them why we voted them in. Of course, I expect a barrage of snide, cynical responses dismissing Obama, America, and Democracy, but at the end of the day we have two choices: believe that we can do nothing and sit their while democracy erodes one bit at a time, or keep trying to defend it as best we can.

Finally, I would remind you that the Obama Presidency is still new. Their is still time for him to reverse this policy, but we should excercise our right to free expression to urge him to do so.

Way ahead of you. I'm doing that as we speak.

Rolling squid;14533999']why? The Afgani war is the right war to fight. Those responsible for 9-11 mostly operate in the area.

To summarize, we brought 9-11 upon ourselves. Even the official government 9-11 investigative committee concluded that Bin Laden attacked us because we were intruding in the Middle East and especially building military bases in Saudi Arabia.

GWB should've done the right thing and closed down all our military bases on 9-12-01. Then the so called "War on Terror" would've ended with ~2,000 unfortunate American casualties, but no more would have to die and suffer.

I'm not saying what Bin Laden did was excusable, but that our policies have flushed and continue flushing billions of dollars and thousands of American and foreign lives down the toilet. We could've averted all this wasted lives and money and ended this mess the day after 9-11. Obama can still end it today.

But that's the thing, these guys are experts on the constitution. This means that when they interpret the constitution, they do so impartially, and based on what it actually SAYS, they can't just erroneously interpret the constitution because it doesn't feel 'right'.

I know. That's basically what I said. I may not be morally the right thing, but legally it's fine.

End the Afghanistan war. Obama and his supporters love this ridiculous war more than the proverbial fat kid loves cake.

Please provide some ounce of evidence or just one sound argument in support of this position.

The Afghan war is not Iraq. Their has probably been more public support from the Afghanis for our pressense, and definitely more international support. It was done in response to an actual attack on America (unless you're a Truther). It is linked to the instability in Pakistan, which of all current political situations is perhaps the one most likely to lead to a nuclear war. If America has fought one war since World War 2 that is remotely justifiable, it is Afghanistan. Obama is completely correct to focus on Afghanistan as a major part of his foreign policy, and until you or someone more capable and informed pressents satisfactory evidence to the contrary, I will continue to defend this position.

To summarize, we brought 9-11 upon ourselves. Even the official government 9-11 investigative committee concluded that Bin Laden attacked us because we were intruding in the Middle East and especially building military bases in Saudi Arabia.

GWB should've done the right thing and closed down all our military bases on 9-12-01. Then the so called "War on Terror" would've ended with ~2,000 unfortunate American casualties, but no more would have to die and suffer.

I'm not saying what Bin Laden did was excusable, but that our policies have flushed and continue flushing billions of dollars and thousands of American and foreign lives down the toilet. We could've averted all this wasted lives and money and ended this mess the day after 9-11. Obama can still end it today.

yup, because folding to a bunch of whack jobs is the right thing to do. We didn't bring 9/11 on ourselves anymore than a rape victim deserves to get raped.

*sigh*

Like the boy that cried "wolf," this the umpteenth time you've screamed "BETRAYAL" and your credibility is thin.

Regardless, as the article explains this is a TWO SENTENCE FILING and there are very legitimate distinctions between Bagram Air Force base and Gitmo. We are talking about prisoners seized in an active war zone. Existing SCOTUS caselaw makes just such a distinction.

Ahem.

The Supreme Court of the United States has said that Bagram AFB is EXACTLY like Gitmo. See Williams vs. Pryor.

In related news:

U.S. Attorney General Appoints Executive Director to Lead New Task Force on Review of Guantanamo Bay Detainees (http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/February/09-ag-148.html)

WASHINGTON – Attorney General Eric Holder today announced the appointment of an Executive Director to lead a new interagency task force charged with continued implementation of the President’s Jan. 22 Executive Order calling for an immediate review of the status of individuals currently detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.

The Executive Director, Matthew G. Olsen, will lead the Guantanamo Detainee Review Task Force, which is responsible for assembling and examining relevant information and making recommendations regarding the proper disposition of each individual currently detained at Guantanamo Bay.

In accordance with the President’s Order, the Task Force will consider whether it is possible to transfer or release detained individuals consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States; evaluate whether the government should seek to prosecute detained individuals for crimes they may have committed; and, if none of those options are possible, the Task Force will recommend other lawful means for disposition of the detained individuals.

The Order provides that the Attorney General shall coordinate this review in conjunction with the Secretaries of Defense, State, and Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in order for the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay to be closed within one year from the date of the Executive Order.

"As a leader of the Department’s National Security Division and 12-year career federal prosecutor, Mr. Olsen has the experience and judgment to lead the team’s evaluation of these individual cases," said Attorney General Holder. "We’ve established a solid framework for the administration to make the right decision on each individual detainee -- decisions that will most effectively serve the interests of justice and the national security and foreign policy objectives of the United States."

As Executive Director for the detention review process, Mr. Olsen will be responsible for managing the consideration and disposition of individual detainee cases as set forth in the President’s Order. He will supervise review teams consisting of representatives from the Justice Department and the other agencies identified in the President’s Order.

These multi-agency teams will conduct the specific detainee reviews and develop options and recommendations for the Executive Director to present to a Review Panel consisting of senior-level officials from each of the relevant Departments and agencies who are authorized to make decisions as to the disposition of each detainee. Review Panel members will be responsible for ensuring that each department or agency devotes the necessary resources so that the Task Force can conduct this review and enable closure of the facility within the one-year time frame required under the Executive Order.

Until his appointment today, Mr. Olsen served as the Acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security, where he managed the Justice Department’s National Security Division. Previously, as Deputy Assistant Attorney General, he helped establish the National Security Division in 2006 and supervised the Department’s intelligence operations and oversight.

###

Change is indeed coming. It may not be every iota of change you want or as fast as you want, but it is coming.

To summarize, we brought 9-11 upon ourselves. Even the official government 9-11 investigative committee concluded that Bin Laden attacked us because we were intruding in the Middle East and especially building military bases in Saudi Arabia.

GWB should've done the right thing and closed down all our military bases on 9-12-01. Then the so called "War on Terror" would've ended with ~2,000 unfortunate American casualties, but no more would have to die and suffer.

Leaving aside the reality that such an action in the wake of 911 would have likely resulted in his impeachment and perhaps his assassination, what message would it send?

I'll tell you: it would send the message that, if only you murder 2,000 of our people, we will not only concede to your demands, but let you walk away scot free. We don't let murderers go free because their victim was doing their wife or punched them first. Why should we let Bin Laden walk free because his actions were provoked? The man is a threat to public safety.

I'm not saying what Bin Laden did was excusable, but that our policies have flushed and continue flushing billions of dollars and thousands of American and foreign lives down the toilet. We could've averted all this wasted lives and money and ended this mess the day after 9-11. Obama can still end it today.

You actually think the Taliban would let it end their? And even if they did, what about the Afghani people who would suffer and die under them? What about their ambitions to establish their perverted brand of government in Pakistan, with the plausible result of a nuclear war with India and/or Israel? Their are perhaps few decisions Obama could make that would have a greater potential to turn into a disaster than to just walk away from Afghanistan.

Rolling squid;14534028']yup, because folding to a bunch of whack jobs is the right thing to do. We didn't bring 9/11 on ourselves anymore than a rape victim deserves to get raped.

Hell, folding is the only thing we can do now, given our limited resources. We didn't bring 9/11 on ourselves but we shouldn't continue to rape ourselves with a dildo by fighting an useless waste of a war as our country and economy crumbles.

As long as they are recognised as POWs, I'm fine with this ruling

Leaving aside the reality that such an action in the wake of 911 would have likely resulted in his impeachment and perhaps his assassination,
That just means the American people are ignorant. People deserves the leaders they get.

what message would it send?

I'll tell you: it would send the message that, if only you murder 2,000 of our people, we will not only concede to your demands, but let you walk away scot free. We don't let murderers go free because their victim was doing their wife or punched them first. Why should we let Bin Laden walk free because his actions were provoked? The man is a threat to public safety.

We've sent that message before, and that message results in peace and prosperity. Viet Cong killed 50,000 Americans and we walked away. And now we're friends and trade partners with Hanoi.

You actually think the Taliban would let it end their? And even if they did, what about the Afghani people who would suffer and die under them? What about their ambitions to establish their perverted brand of government in Pakistan, with the plausible result of a nuclear war with India and/or Israel? Their are perhaps few decisions Obama could make that would have a greater potential to turn into a disaster than to just walk away from Afghanistan.

Taliban would've been moderated with reconciliation and trade with the US, just like Communist Vietnam was. The Afghani people would've benefited from peace, just like the Vietnamese people did.

For the life of us, we Americans seem to be pathologically incapable of learning from history's mistakes...

Incidentally, I have to agree that this may not be as bad as it sounds. Does the Constitution grant rights to non-citizens over seas? As long as Obama stays within International and American Law, and doesn't violate the prisoner's human rights, it could be ok.

I'd have to know more about the relevant laws to say one way or the other though.

It was not stupid to vote for him, both because we couldn't know for sure he would do something like this, and because McCain would be immeasurably worse, especially if he died and let Palin in.

However, if this is correct, and we're getting the full picture, then it is a betrayal both of his supporters and his duty. Not very surprising perhaps, given the tendency for government to accumulate rather than give up power, but a betrayal nonetheless.

But rather than ranting at the air, why don't you do something about it? Contact Congressmen and the President, and remind them why we voted them in. Of course, I expect a barrage of snide, cynical responses dismissing Obama, America, and Democracy, but at the end of the day we have two choices: believe that we can do nothing and sit their while democracy erodes one bit at a time, or keep trying to defend it as best we can.

Finally, I would remind you that the Obama Presidency is still new. Their is still time for him to reverse this policy, but we should excercise our right to free expression to urge him to do so.

May I TG you? I have a question I'd like your opinion on.

Does the Constitution grant rights to non-citizens over seas?
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America, but reserve the right to shit in the mouth of foreigners.

:P

May I TG you? I have a question I'd like your opinion on.

Sure. Anytime. I can't garuntee a quick reply though, since I have an exam tomorrow and will likely be going to sleep soon.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America, but reserve the right to shit in the mouth of foreigners.

:P

Thanks for the mildly amusing but utterly uninformative reply.;)

Thanks for the mildly amusing but utterly uninformative reply.
My pleasure.

*doffs cap*

And the screams of rage continue on his one month anniversary....

End the Afghanistan war. Obama and his supporters love this ridiculous war more than the proverbial fat kid loves cake.
Right. Because he sent us there....
Oh wait....

Right. Because he sent us there....
Oh wait....

Yeah, it's strange. It's as if Obama people love the war more than the Bush people who sent us there.

To summarize, we brought 9-11 upon ourselves.

We didn't bring 9/11 on ourselves

Wait, what?

Yeah, it's strange. It's as if Obama people love the war more than the Bush people who sent us there.
You are seriously not making any sense.

And the screams of rage continue on his one month anniversary....


Right. Because he sent us there....
Oh wait....

I'm sorry Kat, but this is a fairly major issue. Admittedly, I jumped the gun before (and was rightly brought to task for it by Muravyets on the other thread), but isn't this one of the major criticisms of Bush? I'm not seeing the difference here between what Bush was doing at Gitmo and what Obama wants to do at Bagram. Why should where the detention center is make a difference?

Wait, what?


Sorry, that was a typo made in haste. What I meant to write was "A rape victim doesn't deserve to be raped". I copy+pasted the wrong clause from the poster I was quoting.

http://www.mikero.com/blogpics/darwin-1-sm.gif

:P

http://www.mikero.com/blogpics/darwin-1-sm.gif

:P

Ok, that was made of win. :D

I'm sorry Kat, but this is a fairly major issue. Admittedly, I jumped the gun before (and was rightly brought to task for it by Muravyets on the other thread), but isn't this one of the major criticisms of Bush? I'm not seeing the difference here between what Bush was doing at Gitmo and what Obama wants to do at Bagram. Why should where the detention center is make a difference?
Maineiacs, after the way I jumped on you in the other thread, I think I should say now that regardless of how early it is in the Obama presidency, we should all be writing the White House and our Congresspeople to keep up the pressure on the government to do what is right, finally. That said, however, I think you are jumping the gun again. The detention center at Bagram is, as far as I have ever heard, a legitimate installation. However, it was used illegitimately by those operating under Bush policies and directives. Now we have a chance to fix that, by recognizing detainees as POWs for example. But active war zones do actually need detention centers, so it is not immediately clear that just because Obama is not closing it, it means he is continuing Bush's policy there. Let's keep the pressure up, but also, wait and see what he does and how long it takes him to do it.

Maineiacs, after the way I jumped on you in the other thread, I think I should say now that regardless of how early it is in the Obama presidency, we should all be writing the White House and our Congresspeople to keep up the pressure on the government to do what is right, finally. That said, however, I think you are jumping the gun again. The detention center at Bagram is, as far as I have ever heard, a legitimate installation. However, it was used illegitimately by those operating under Bush policies and directives. Now we have a chance to fix that, by recognizing detainees as POWs for example. But active war zones do actually need detention centers, so it is not immediately clear that just because Obama is not closing it, it means he is continuing Bush's policy there. Let's keep the pressure up, but also, wait and see what he does and how long it takes him to do it.

I actually have written to Obama, and I'm considering doing the same to Sens. Snowe and Collins, as well as Rep. Michaud. I'll post what the reply is.

Chicken Little-esq "the sky is falling!' frantic hysteria is unattractive.

Especially when you don't understand what's going on.

I actually have written to Obama, and I'm considering doing the same to Sens. Snowe and Collins, as well as Rep. Michaud. I'll post what the reply is.
Any answer you get will be political fluff meant to reassure you enough to get you to stop writing them letters and instead give money to their next campaigns. What you want to do is write to them, write to newspapers, demonstrate, etc, and then wait and see what they do. And the more time passes, the more pressure we put on them.

But what we don't do is condemn them for not having done something very complicated in such a short period of time.

Yeah, it's strange. It's as if Obama people love the war more than the Bush people who sent us there.Yes, because preparing for massive military unit movement, on the scale of millions of pieces of equipment, and over two hundred thousand soldiers and support personnel, should be a piece of cake, right? Obama should just snap his fingers and make everything to do with both wars magically go away? Because that's what you're asking for, magic. :rolleyes:

http://www.mikero.com/blogpics/darwin-1-sm.gif

:P

That does explain the Right-Wingers' Unnatural Hatred of the Current Administration, lol...

Yes, because preparing for massive military unit movement, on the scale of millions of pieces of equipment, and over two hundred thousand soldiers and support personnel, should be a piece of cake, right? Obama should just snap his fingers and make everything to do with both wars magically go away? Because that's what you're asking for, magic. :rolleyes:

But...but...I thought, Obama = Sauron? No?

But...but...I thought, Obama = Sauron? No?I suppose not.
I don't know what that person was thinking, but a month to prepare for the return home of that much equipment, and that many soldiers? Not happening.

I'm beyond speechless. Rage doesn't even come close to what I feel. Everyone (including me) who was stupid enough to vote for him has been betrayed. The only thing to say in his defence is that McCain probably would have nuked Iran by now like he "joked" about during the campaign. What says NSG? (braces self for the "He's finally doing the right thing" and the "told you so" crowds)

Sigh. Change does not mean disagreeing with everything that any previous administration has ever done.

Grow up already. He closed Gitmo, he's attempting to infuse the economy from the bottom up, science again has attained its rightful place and he's seriously investigating climate change issues.

These things are all substantial changes from the last eight years.

I don't agree with everything he's doing either. For instance, maintaining Bush's Faith Based Initiative, but I don't yell "I'VE BEEN BETRAYED" every time the administration does something I don't agree with.

I'll reserve judgement for the long haul. Of course first there has to be a long haul. I think one month is a tad short to begin judging don't you?

The fact is, Obama's argument isn't necessarily WRONG. He's arguing that prisoners of war in a war zone are treated differently, under the constitution, than prisoners under normal confinement. That the constitutional rights binding prisoners in prisons don't necessarily apply to them, due to military concerns.

And he might actually be right. This is an argument as a matter of law. Not of morality or ethics. It's a legal argument, not a moral one. If it turns out those prisoners are abused or tortured, of course I will be against it. But the fact is they're merely making a legal argument. One that is not necessarily wrong.

I don't agree with everything he's doing either. For instance, maintaining Bush's Faith Based Initiative, but I don't yell "I'VE BEEN BETRAYED" every time the administration does something I don't agree with.

With that, I think Obama's planning on expanding it to include all faith-based groups, not just White Anglo-Saxon Protestant groups run by Second Comers who pitched for Dear Leader in the previous two elections. Like I said in the other thread about the initiative, I think it would be a riot if an Islamic community group got funded by this just to hear all the Busheviks screaming "Ebil Mozlem," "AmeriCaliphate," and "Sauron is Bin Ladin's Manchurian Candidate," etc. etc.

But...but...I thought, Obama = Sauron? No?

If he were Sauron he'd win both wars with Nazgul and Balrogs.

What says NSG? Yes, please release the enemy combatants so they can shoot at our soldiers some more! It makes perfect sense to release "enemy combatants" captured in an active war-zone back into that active war-zone...right? :rolleyes:

EDIT: And I agree with Neo.

If he were Sauron he'd win both wars with Nazgul and Balrogs.

But, didnt Sauron lose the War of the Ring in the end?

But, didnt Sauron lose the War of the Ring in the end?

well, we just have to be on the lookout for some Arab midget who's trying to destroy a golden ring near a major American monument.

well, we just have to be on the lookout for some Arab midget who's trying to destroy a golden ring near a major American monument.

http://www.vh1.com/sitewide/flipbooks/img/shows/i_love_new_york_2/the_men/midget_mac/midget_mac_5152.jpg

This man robbed a Golden Arches in Wichita, does that count?

http://www.vh1.com/sitewide/flipbooks/img/shows/i_love_new_york_2/the_men/midget_mac/midget_mac_5152.jpg

This man robbed a Golden Arches in Wichita, does that count?

He'd probably pawn the One Ring before trying to destroy it, naaah.

http://www.vh1.com/sitewide/flipbooks/img/shows/i_love_new_york_2/the_men/midget_mac/midget_mac_5152.jpg

This man robbed a Golden Arches in Wichita, does that count?...Hey, you're back. I wondered where you wondered off too. ;)

http://www.vh1.com/sitewide/flipbooks/img/shows/i_love_new_york_2/the_men/midget_mac/midget_mac_5152.jpg

This man robbed a Golden Arches in Wichita, does that count?

no, he has to be accompanied by his gardener (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samwise_Gamgee).

EDIT: They all come back eventually...

Change you can believe in, change everyone can believe in.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090221/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/terror_detainees

'm beyond speechless. Rage doesn't even come close to what I feel. Everyone (including me) who was stupid enough to vote for him has been betrayed. The only thing to say in his defence is that McCain probably would have nuked Iran by now like he "joked" about during the campaign. What says NSG? (braces self for the "He's finally doing the right thing" and the "told you so" crowds)

I'm only back until the Dark Midget throws my class ring into a toilet in a whorehouse in Tijuana...then my evil power will be undone.

I'm beyond speechless. Rage doesn't even come close to what I feel. Everyone (including me) who was stupid enough to vote for him has been betrayed.

A politician said one thing during a campaign and then did another once he got elected?! I am shocked, mostly because that's never happened before. Who could possibly have seen that coming?

Maybe you just need to keep on hoping...

I'm beyond speechless. Rage doesn't even come close to what I feel. Everyone (including me) who was stupid enough to vote for him has been betrayed.

I don't understand why you feel so betrayed or why you feel so angry. This isn't a surprise position at all. The airbase in Afghanistan is very different from the base in Guantanamo Bay, where the US exercise exclusive jurisdiction and control, with no other country’s law applying.

Even if they have no constitutional rights, however, they may still retain rights under Afghan law, or the rights granted to them on account of being Prisoners of War. They are not, as some falsely claimed about the Guantanamo detainee, in a legal "black hole" and without any rights. I don't see the Obama administration claiming that they are either.

As for your "There is no change" rant, I would suggest you wake up and smell the maple nut crunch.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090221/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/terror_detainees




I'm beyond speechless. Rage doesn't even come close to what I feel. Everyone (including me) who was stupid enough to vote for him has been betrayed. The only thing to say in his defence is that McCain probably would have nuked Iran by now like he "joked" about during the campaign. What says NSG? (braces self for the "He's finally doing the right thing" and the "told you so" crowds)

You know what's funny? I was going to post this, and expect Neo Art to roll his eyes and say, "not this shit again".

Now I don't need to do it anymore - the people who expected so much of Obama are doing it.

I can sit back and have a good laugh now.

Obama's got himself a fig leaf for Guantanamo...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/20/pentagon-report-concludes-guantanamo-detainees-treated-humanely/

And it looks like we're harassing Muslims in the US, and arresting them if they don't become informants...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,497924,00.html

Boy, some change.

And it looks like we're harassing Muslims in the US, and arresting them if they don't become informants...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,497924,00.html

Boy, some change.
You obviously didn't read the same article I did. Pretty sad when you have to lie about what the news on Fox News is to look petty and self-important.

You obviously didn't read the same article I did. Pretty sad when you have to lie about what the news on Fox News is to look petty and self-important.

This is SOP for Kimchi:

http://www.gamegoldies.org/old_game_files/2007/10/ace_ventura_screenshot_2.png

Glad to see that the people who love Obama have finally begun to fight amongst each other about the "change" that isn't happening.

Glad to see that the people who love Obama have finally begun to fight amongst each other about the "change" that isn't happening.

Now he's delusional :rolleyes:

Lol at the Obama supporters trying to defend this.

If America has fought one war since World War 2 that is remotely justifiable, it is Afghanistan.
Korea?

I'm sorry Kat, but this is a fairly major issue. Admittedly, I jumped the gun before (and was rightly brought to task for it by Muravyets on the other thread), but isn't this one of the major criticisms of Bush? I'm not seeing the difference here between what Bush was doing at Gitmo and what Obama wants to do at Bagram. Why should where the detention center is make a difference?
If this was the middle/late 1940s, and those were German miltary personnel (or civilian Nazi Party members suspected of involvement in the Holocaust) being detained at Allied bases in Germany, would you be arguing that that was legally &/or morally wrong?

given how many good things obama has already done in his 1 month in office i am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on the few that send up red flags (like this one).

yes it might turn out to be a very bad thing but it also might turn out to be a technical ruling that does not mean a continuation of bad policies in afghan prison camps.

Lol at the Obama supporters trying to defend this.

Any minute now, there will be an army of liberal lawyers descending on Maineiacs' house, to go through the garbage and try to find stuff to smear Maineiacs with.

Other people on this forum will follow, with smear attacks on Maineiacs.

I'm waiting for the obligatory "Maineiacs has been DK all along!"

Obama's Justice Department defends Bush policies:

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003057981

The Justice Department has filed an emergency stay motion at the 9th Circuit, asking it to freeze a district judge’s order in a lawsuit challenging the legality of President Bush’s warrantless surveillance program.

It is the second move in the 9th Circuit by Obama’s Justice Department this month to continue shielding controversial Bush counterterrorism policies in such lawsuits. And it is likely to give a fresh push to Democratic legislation pending in Congress to circumscribe Obama’s use of the “state secrets privilege” to withold government information.

Hotwife, darlin', if you keep up these every-thirty-second "news" reports I'm afraid you're going to give yourself a heart attack or stroke. You've got at least three years and eleven months of this ahead of you. Pace yourself.

Us, think Maineiacs is you? A little paranoid and silly, no?

If these guys get the POW treatment, I'm fine. We could detain them on US soil, even, and I'd be cool with it.

If these guys get the POW treatment, I'm fine. We could detain them on US soil, even, and I'd be cool with it.Exactly. As long as they're treated as POWs, it's fine.

Any minute now, there will be an army of liberal lawyers descending on Maineiacs' house, to go through the garbage and try to find stuff to smear Maineiacs with.

Other people on this forum will follow, with smear attacks on Maineiacs.

I'm waiting for the obligatory "Maineiacs has been DK all along!"

Like I said, delusional.

Lol at the Obama supporters trying to defend this.

How about you pointing out where my previous post - and the posts of others - were lol-worthy? Why should the US constitution apply to POWs held on an Afghan airbase that the US military are currently using? Can you explain to me why Afghan law wouldn't apply to them, if they're not POWs?

And it looks like we're harassing Muslims in the US, and arresting them if they don't become informants...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,497924,00.html

Boy, some change.

So are you unable or just unwilling to present your links factually correct?

That said, I should add that I think the conditions at the detention facility in Bagram is deplorable, and I hope the Obama administration will take steps to improve it, including making sure to punish US soldiers who have crossed lines and become criminals...

That said, I should add that I think the conditions at the detention facility in Bagram is deplorable, and I hope the Obama administration will take steps to improve it, including making sure to punish US soldiers who have crossed lines and become criminals...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7903005.stm


Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

Detainees being held at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan cannot use US courts to challenge their detention, the US says.

The justice department ruled that some 600 so-called enemy combatants at Bagram have no constitutional rights.

Most have been arrested in Afghanistan on suspicion of waging a terrorist war against the US.

The move has disappointed human rights lawyers who had hoped the Obama administration would take a different line to that of George W Bush.

Prof Barbara Olshansky, the lead counsel in a legal challenge on behalf of four Bagram detainees, told the BBC the justice department's decision not to reform the rules was both surprising and "enormously disappointing".

The BBC's Kevin Connolly in Washington says the move has angered human rights lawyers, with one saying the new White House was endorsing the view of the old one, that prisons could be created and run outside the law.

It is certainly evidence that having set the tone for his administration by announcing plans to close Guantanamo Bay, Mr Obama intends to adopt a much more cautious approach to the problem of detainees held elsewhere by the US military, our correspondent says.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7903005.stm


Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

Do you have a point you want to make? If not, I'd suggest just quoting the OP again, since you don't offer anything new.

Here, let me show you how to make a point. Pretend I've just rewritten the last post I had above. And then I'll add:

"There is a hope of that, since he's ordered a task force led by the attorney general and the defense secretary to review overall policy on detainees. A report is due in six months, so I hope to see some changes then.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ReviewofDetentionPolicyOptions/

I guess some of us have some patience."

A politician said one thing during a campaign and then did another once he got elected?!

Maybe it's just me, but Im not sure I remember the Obama election-campaign ever once mentioning how they were going to deal with in-theatre detentions in Afghanistan.

More hopenchange: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4742126/Barack-Obama-under-fire-for-picking-a-crony-fundraiser-as-his-ambassador-to-Britain.html

So much for no more politics as usual. You have to be a paying crony to get an ambassadorship still.

Maybe it's just me, but Im not sure I remember the Obama election-campaign ever once mentioning how they were going to deal with in-theatre detentions in Afghanistan.Did he say much about Afghanistan, at all?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...tml?wprss=rss_nation

Review Finds Detainees' Treatment Legal
Pentagon Report on Guantanamo Urges More Interaction for Some, Official Says

By Peter Finn and Del Quentin Wilber
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, February 21, 2009; Page A03

A Pentagon review of conditions in the Guantanamo Bay military prison has concluded that the treatment of detainees meets the requirements of the Geneva Conventions but that prisoners in the highest-security camps should be allowed more religious and social interaction, according to a government official who has read the 85-page document.

The report, which was ordered by President Obama, was prepared by Adm. Patrick M. Walsh, the vice chief of naval operations, and has been delivered to the White House. Obama requested the review as part of an executive order on the planned closure of the prison at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, on the southeastern tip of Cuba.

Another aspect of the closure -- what to do with the approximately 245 detainees -- will be considered by an interagency task force, and the Justice Department yesterday announced the head of that group: Matthew G. Olsen, a 12-year career prosecutor and acting assistant attorney general for national security.

Review teams will examine the case of each detainee and report to Olsen, who will make recommendations to senior officials from Justice and other agencies, including the Departments of State and Defense and the CIA. Those officials will make the final decision on each prisoner.

"The Task Force will consider whether it is possible to transfer or release detained individuals consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States; evaluate whether the government should seek to prosecute detained individuals for crimes they may have committed; and, if none of those options are possible, the Task Force will recommend other lawful means for disposition of the detained individuals," the Justice Department said in a statement.

Defense lawyers for the detainees have complained bitterly about the isolation of some prisoners. They allege that over several years, it has led to mental problems for some detainees. The lawyers also have criticized the force-feeding of prisoners on hunger strike. There are about 40 prisoners on hunger strike, according to Pentagon officials.

Walsh concluded that force-feeding, which involves strapping prisoners to specialized chairs and forcing tubes down one nostril and into their stomachs, is in compliance with the Geneva Conventions' mandate that the lives of prisoners be preserved, according to the government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the report publicly.

Walsh also found that prisoners should be allowed more communal recreation and prayer time. Prisoners in Camp 6 and the highly secret Camp 7 -- which holds such high-value detainees as Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed organizer of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks -- can be held in windowless cells for up to 22 hours a day.

Walsh said the most isolated prisoners, including those in Camp 7, should be allowed to pray and have recess together in rotating groups of at least three for more extended periods of time.

Walsh's report was a broad endorsement of the Pentagon's management of the prisoners at Guantanamo, and it urged prison authorities to continue efforts across the system to maximize the ability of the detainees to socialize and practice their religion, according to the government official. "Continue to avoid actions that are disrespectful to the detainees," Walsh wrote.

Civil liberties groups, including the Center for Constitutional Rights, which is about to issue a report on conditions at Guantanamo, challenged Walsh's findings.

"We do think conditions are in violation of U.S. obligations to treat prisoners humanely, and prisoners are at a physical and mental breaking point," said Pardiss Kebriaei, a staff attorney at the center. "These are not the conclusions we had hoped for under Obama. It's very disappointing."

Attorneys representing detainees singled out force-feeding as particularly abusive.

Ahmed Zaid Salem Zuhair, a Saudi who has been on a hunger strike since the summer of 2005, has lost so much weight during his time in Guantanamo that a federal judge has ordered an independent medical evaluation of him. Zuhair's attorney, Ramzi Kassem, said his client has been strapped to an uncomfortable chair for hours at a time during the feeding and described the procedure as very painful.

"They deliberately use this brutal method that has no medical justification to put pressure on people like my client to give up the hunger strike," Kassem said.

Kassem added that his client, who has been cleared for release, was recently moved to Camp 6, where he is on nearly round-the-clock lockdown in a frigid cell.

Walsh, however, found that the temperature in cells is comfortable and urged officials to continue to use climate controls correctly.

David Remes, another lawyer who represents a hunger striker, called the force-feeding methods "torture." The medical staff often uses tubes that are too big, Remes said, and does not provide lubrication and anesthetic to ease the process.

Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey D. Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman, dismissed Remes's allegations as "false," saying that tubes are appropriately sized and that detainees are offered a variety of lubricants, including olive oil, and a gel anesthetic.

The military prison at Guantanamo Bay has a series of facilities with differing levels of security. Prisoners deemed dangerous or not in compliance with prison rules are held in Camps 5 and 6, where recreation time is restricted and there is little or no opportunity for group activity. In Camp 4, by contrast, detainees can gather in dorms or a common area much of the day, and there are classes, including English and art, as well as a makeshift soccer pitch.

Little is known about Camp 7, which is at a secret location at Guantanamo and off limits even to military lawyers representing the men there. It houses those detainees who were formerly held at secret CIA prisons.

So much for no more politics as usual. You have to be a paying crony to get an ambassadorship still.Yes, because a lawyer (Someone who actually knows that we have a Constitution! *gasp*) and a banker (Someone who understands economics somewhat! *second gasp*) is exactly what we don't need. Because he obviously only got it because he collected money from other people to give to President Obama. Yes, of course.

Maybe it's just me, but Im not sure I remember the Obama election-campaign ever once mentioning how they were going to deal with in-theatre detentions in Afghanistan.

And lets' not forget what he's done already:

Sec. 3. Standards and Practices for Interrogation of Individuals in the Custody or Control of the United States in Armed Conflicts.

(a) Common Article 3 Standards as a Minimum Baseline. Consistent with the requirements of the Federal torture statute, 18 U.S.C. 2340-2340A, section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 2000dd, the Convention Against Torture, Common Article 3, and other laws regulating the treatment and interrogation of individuals detained in any armed conflict, such persons shall in all circumstances be treated humanely and shall not be subjected to violence to life and person (including murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture), nor to outrages upon personal dignity (including humiliating and degrading treatment), whenever such individuals are in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States.

(b) Interrogation Techniques and Interrogation-Related Treatment. Effective immediately, an individual in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government, or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States, in any armed conflict, shall not be subjected to any interrogation technique or approach, or any treatment related to interrogation, that is not authorized by and listed in Army Field Manual 2-22.3 (Manual). Interrogation techniques, approaches, and treatments described in the Manual shall be implemented strictly in accord with the principles, processes, conditions, and limitations the Manual prescribes. Where processes required by the Manual, such as a requirement of approval by specified Department of Defense officials, are inapposite to a department or an agency other than the Department of Defense, such a department or agency shall use processes that are substantially equivalent to the processes the Manual prescribes for the Department of Defense. Nothing in this section shall preclude the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or other Federal law enforcement agencies, from continuing to use authorized, non-coercive techniques of interrogation that are designed to elicit voluntary statements and do not involve the use of force, threats, or promises.

(c) Interpretations of Common Article 3 and the Army Field Manual. From this day forward, unless the Attorney General with appropriate consultation provides further guidance, officers, employees, and other agents of the United States Government may, in conducting interrogations, act in reliance upon Army Field Manual 2-22.3, but may not, in conducting interrogations, rely upon any interpretation of the law governing interrogation -- including interpretations of Federal criminal laws, the Convention Against Torture, Common Article 3, Army Field Manual 2-22.3, and its predecessor document, Army Field Manual 34-52 -- issued by the Department of Justice between September 11, 2001, and January 20, 2009.

Sec. 4. Prohibition of Certain Detention Facilities, and Red Cross Access to Detained Individuals.

(a) CIA Detention. The CIA shall close as expeditiously as possible any detention facilities that it currently operates and shall not operate any such detention facility in the future.

(b) International Committee of the Red Cross Access to Detained Individuals. All departments and agencies of the Federal Government shall provide the International Committee of the Red Cross with notification of, and timely access to, any individual detained in any armed conflict in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States Government, consistent with Department of Defense regulations and policies.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Ensuring_Lawful_Interrogations/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...tml?wprss=rss_nation
Reduced to cut'n'paste spam now, are we?

And lets' not forget what he's done already:



http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Ensuring_Lawful_Interrogations/

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/4084/changemotivator.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Did he say much about Afghanistan, at all?

He said he was going to refocus on Afghanistan rather than Iraq... that's about it, from what I recall.

Let's do the Time Warp again!

Let's do this just like Bush... http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/02/21/national/w103624S96.DTL

Why is it such an awful thing that enemy combatants held in a foreign country don't get the rights of US citizens? I don't understand the outrage.

More hopenchange: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4742126/Barack-Obama-under-fire-for-picking-a-crony-fundraiser-as-his-ambassador-to-Britain.html

So much for no more politics as usual. You have to be a paying crony to get an ambassadorship still.

I lol'd in the first sentence.
The selection of Mr Susman, a lawyer and banker from the president's hometown of Chicago,
Population Chicago: 2.8 million people
The city has a larger population than 17 states.

Here's the actual important line though:
He said: "It is a strange country where we jeer at ex-Governor Rod Blagojevich for allegedly auctioning off a Senate seat while accepting as normal that dozens of ambassadorships are brazenly sold to the highest bidder.

Sure, we can hold Obama to a higher standard, but were this not Obama would anyone give a shit? No.

Let's do the Time Warp again!

Let's do this just like Bush... http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/02/21/national/w103624S96.DTL

And you've turned to spamming the thread. I guess you have nothing to contribute. How shocked I am by that fact.

If these guys get the POW treatment, I'm fine. We could detain them on US soil, even, and I'd be cool with it.

Exactly. As long as they're treated as POWs, it's fine.
These.^^ Those detainees were captured in an active warzone. That makes them prisoners of war and subject to the Geneva Conventions. As long as Obama doesn't try to pull that Bush bullshit of making up excuses and fake categories to claim the GC don't apply, then their detention is legal and will not be abusive (due to the GC rules). And if Obama succeeds in ending the war, then their detention will end, so it's not indefinite, like Bush's little oubliette in Cuba.

I hate to say it but legally, they don't have any constitutional rights, they never lived within the US, they were captured in combat zones, many of them in combat making them at best POWs but in accordance with the Geneva Convetions they are not protected and should be lucky to have any rights at all, as dispicable as it might be the Coalition would be well within International Law to execute them on the spot as spies.

These.^^ Those detainees were captured in an active warzone. That makes them prisoners of war and subject to the Geneva Conventions. As long as Obama doesn't try to pull that Bush bullshit of making up excuses and fake categories to claim the GC don't apply, then their detention is legal and will not be abusive (due to the GC rules). And if Obama succeeds in ending the war, then their detention will end, so it's not indefinite, like Bush's little oubliette in Cuba.

They don't qualify as a proffesional force or a militia, they aren't protected by the Geneva Convention, just by common sense and the good graces of thier captors.

Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

...and since when do PoWs get to apply to the courts of their captors' country?

What PoWs get is: treatment according to Geneva Convention AND release upon end of conflict.

...and since when do PoWs get to apply to the courts of their captors' country?

What PoWs get is: treatment according to Geneva Convention AND release upon end of conflict.

Which as I pointed out these guys in a lot of cases are lucky to get.

They don't qualify as a proffesional force or a militia, they aren't protected by the Geneva Convention, just by common sense and the good graces of thier captors.

The Geneva convention, as a main point, only allow for two groups: Combatants and Non-combatants. There are of course some exceptions. But I'd like to see the legal reasoning for why these people are only entitled to the rights that their captors chose to give them...

The Geneva convention, as a main point, only allow for two groups: Combatants and Non-combatants. There are of course some exceptions. But I'd like to see the legal reasoning for why these people are only entitled to the rights that their captors chose to give them...

Because they essentially count as spies to my understanding. I posted where it states what combatants are protected by the conventions 5 posts up.

Because they essentially count as spies to my understanding. I posted where it states what combatants are protected by the conventions 5 posts up.

"Essentially" doesn't cut it. Why would they count as spies? What's the definition of "spies"?

Why aren't the Afghani people counted as combatants? As resistance fighters or milita men?

If they aren't combatants, how do they forfeit the rights granted to all non-combatants?

Why would these people not get the protections and rights granted to them by other international conventions and international law beyond the Geneva Convention, like what's set down in the Convention against torture?

"Essentially" doesn't cut it. Why would they count as spies? What's the definition of "spies"?

Why aren't the Afghani people counted as combatants? As resistance fighters or milita men?

If they aren't combatants, how do they forfeit the rights granted to all non-combatants?

Why would these people not get the protections and rights granted to them by other international conventions and international law beyond the Geneva Convention, like what's set down in the Convention against torture?

that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

The vast majority meet one maybe two of those. And as I very clearly stated I said its to my understanding if you have something to show me that will help me understand otherwise then by all means do so. I think the whole damn thing is an ugly fact.

Why would these people not get the protections and rights granted to them by other international conventions and international law beyond the Geneva Convention, like what's set down in the Convention against torture?
It's a bit OT, but (if you haven't already) check out the top post right now on Boing Boing (http://boingboing.net/):


"This is a picture of my amazing youngest son Evan. He's 13, he's holding a game controller and looking at a glowing screen and he's doing what he does a lot of -- diving into digital realms of adventure.

His latest favourite game is Call of Duty - which he plays on-line with his friends. Evan's wanting to play C of D was something of a challenge for us. It's rated T and he's only just a teenager and point and shoot first person games worry me some. Evan is relentlessly reasonable sometimes -- he outlined why he wanted to play the game and he was pretty upfront why he knew my "parent-sense" would start tingling. So I had to be reasonable too. I looked at the game. I've done a lot of research for military museums so I could tell that the content was accurate -- but there was lots of shooting and blowing things up. But there was a fair bit of that during World War II. So it was undeniable that Evan was experiencing history and there was this teamwork factor...

So we compromised. Well, sort of.

I asked Evan to google the Geneva Convention. Then he had to read it and then we had to discuss it. This we did. So the deal is that Evan has to fight according to the rules of the Geneva Convention. If his team-mates violate the Convention then play stops and Call of Duty goes away for a while.

We'll see how it goes, but Evan keeps his word. Especially about his games."


Pretty cool, no?

They don't qualify as a proffesional force or a militia, they aren't protected by the Geneva Convention, just by common sense and the good graces of thier captors.
And that is exactly the kind of Bushian hairsplitting bullshit that I never want to see my government do ever again. (Hint)

It's a bit OT, but (if you haven't already) check out the top post right now on Boing Boing (http://boingboing.net/):


"This is a picture of my amazing youngest son Evan. He's 13, he's holding a game controller and looking at a glowing screen and he's doing what he does a lot of -- diving into digital realms of adventure.

His latest favourite game is Call of Duty - which he plays on-line with his friends. Evan's wanting to play C of D was something of a challenge for us. It's rated T and he's only just a teenager and point and shoot first person games worry me some. Evan is relentlessly reasonable sometimes -- he outlined why he wanted to play the game and he was pretty upfront why he knew my "parent-sense" would start tingling. So I had to be reasonable too. I looked at the game. I've done a lot of research for military museums so I could tell that the content was accurate -- but there was lots of shooting and blowing things up. But there was a fair bit of that during World War II. So it was undeniable that Evan was experiencing history and there was this teamwork factor...

So we compromised. Well, sort of.

I asked Evan to google the Geneva Convention. Then he had to read it and then we had to discuss it. This we did. So the deal is that Evan has to fight according to the rules of the Geneva Convention. If his team-mates violate the Convention then play stops and Call of Duty goes away for a while.

We'll see how it goes, but Evan keeps his word. Especially about his games."


Pretty cool, no?
That's actually incredibly cool. :D Evan might find himself having NSG-style arguments with his gamer friends about that.

that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

The vast majority meet one maybe two of those. And as I very clearly stated I said its to my understanding if you have something to show me that will help me understand otherwise then by all means do so. I think the whole damn thing is an ugly fact.

I just want you to be aware of what you're saying and make you think through the positions you present here. If they are "essentially" spies, they don't fill the description completely, so you need to explain why we should place them in the very narrow category that's an exception to the rather clear combatant/non-combatant dichotomy.

And if they're only protected by common sense and the good graces of their captors, you need to explain why they don't get the protections that other conventions and international law outline.

To me, it's clear that the people fall into either the category of combatants, and thusly have the rights that POW status entails, or they fall into the category of non-combatants, and get the rights outlined under the civilian legal system (like the right to challenge their detentions in court etc.)

Either way, they are all protected against torture under the Torture Convention, and have a set of basic rights that the captors simply cannot do away with.

That's actually incredibly cool. :D Evan might find himself having NSG-style arguments with his gamer friends about that.
Aye, he might well.

I just love the idea of young gamers discussing the moral ramifications of killing another person; makes a change from them screaming "VETO!!!" at me...

Aye, he might well.

I just love the idea of young gamers discussing the moral ramifications of killing another person; makes a change from them screaming "VETO!!!" at me...
For a while, I played a fantasy MMORPG, and I used to get into it with fighters who could not get why I played the way I did, and why I refused to fight with them on their terms.

On the rare occasions I would fight someone, I always fought as a 1-on-1 duel to the death, winner take all (the penalty for death in that game was dropping items/gear). Players complained about that so much that the developers instituted an expensive and difficult way to avoid the penalty. I refused to use that trick and would not fight anyone who did.

In addition, I refused to fight anyone ranked too far below or above my own level. The combat system in that game was not very advanced, but it was still possible for more or less equally matched fighters to use the controls to fight strategically.

Fighter-players would rail at me that my methods made no sense, that I was crazy, that my methods would ruin PK, etc. I told them: There is no sport, therefore no prestige and no honor, in beating up people who have no chance against you. There is no sport, therefore no prestige and no honor, in issuing challenges but taking no risks. To me, fighting in that game was a kind of gambling. Since the game was set up for you to lose stuff if you lost a fight, then you should not fight unless you were willing to risk your stuff. People who used the stop-loss device were cheating, imo. If you put a bet on a boxing match in Vegas, and your fighter loses, you don't get to take your money back.

The kids hated that, and soon enough they stopped challenging me to fights, even though I lost more than I won. :D

I also had this policy of only killing animals or monsters if doing that would fit in with the RP life story of my character. I would not just grind through critter-killing for points and levels because indiscriminate killing like that is morally bad. Other players would just be mystified at why I would want to slow down my leveling and increase my difficulty like that.

I don't have a problem with this....I think it's a legit argument that they POWs, not held on U.S. territory (or any quasi-U.S. territory like in Cuba) and it is quite difficult to just release them into a war-zone so they can just shoot at your men, again.

To those that argue about "Where is the change?!"....well I'm not an Obama-fanatic like some on NSG who braced themselves for the Second Coming on Jan 18th, so I am actually pleased that he's continuing some of the things the left hated about the former administration, picked right wingers and centrist people to make up his cabinet and just in general has become much more about what is practical than what is popular (his entire election was pure populism).....but here is a section where I truley admire him for, well, yes the change he is bringin:

While this is not directly on topic. . . it is spot-on when it comes to the "Change!?" debate.

Science policy

Blessed are the geeks, for they shall inherit the Earth
Jan 8th 2009
From The Economist print edition

Barack Obama is making good his promise to welcome scientists into his administration
http://media.economist.com/images/20090110/D0209ST1.jpg

ONE of the stranger beliefs of some politicians is that if they treat nature like a troublesome opponent and ignore it, it might go away and stop bothering them. In the opinion of many scientists George Bush, America’s retiring president, was just such a politician. It would be one thing, for example, to argue that it is too expensive to stop climate change and that adapting to such change is a better course of action. It is quite another, as White House officials have done in the past, to describe climate change as a liberal cause without merit.

Mr Bush’s administration also stands accused of suppressing the publication of research he did not like. In 2007, for example, Richard Carmona, then surgeon general, testified to Congress that Mr Bush’s officials had delayed and tried to “water down” a report which concluded that even brief exposure to cigarette smoke could cause immediate harm. It has been criticised, too, for preferring AIDS-prevention techniques based on abstinence (which don’t work, but have a moral appeal to Mr Bush and his supporters) to those that use condoms (which do work). His attitude to research on embryonic stem cells did not endear him to many scientists, either, and although the disagreement in this case was about a matter of principle rather than one of scientific truth, the decision to stop funding such research was seen as yet another example of how low the stock of science had fallen in the government.

Well, it is rising now. On December 15th Barack Obama, the incoming president, announced that he was nominating Steven Chu, a Nobel-prize-winning physicist, to be his energy secretary. At the moment, Dr Chu is head of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, where he has built up a big solar-energy-research project. He is also a strong advocate of research into nuclear power and foresees a world in which fossil fuels are largely replaced by other sources of energy.

On December 20th the president-elect followed Dr Chu’s appointment by nominating Jane Lubchenco, a marine biologist at Oregon State University, as head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This is the government agency responsible for studying the climate, and also for keeping an eye on marine life. Dr Lubchenco has been critical of the Bush administration’s lack of respect for climate science, and for its inaction on greenhouse-gas emissions. She is also concerned about marine pollution and the appearance in the ocean of oxygen-depleted dead zones caused by such pollution.

On the same day John Holdren, a physicist at the John F. Kennedy School of Government in Harvard, who is an expert in the fields of energy, the environment and nuclear proliferation, was appointed as the new presidential science adviser, and he will enjoy higher authority in that position than his Republican predecessor did. In 2007, when Dr Holdren was president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), he argued publicly for swift action on climate change.

Geneticists, too, get a look in. Two of them—Harold Varmus, a former director of the National Institutes of Health, and Eric Lander, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology—will be co-chairmen of the president’s council of advisers on science and technology. All in all, as Alan Leshner, chief executive of the AAAS, puts it, “we’ve never had a president surrounded in close proximity with so many well-known, top scientific minds.” All of them, he predicts, will have access to the president and influence on policy, or else they would have refused the jobs. Dr Leshner says that Dr Varmus has “no interest in being a potted plant. He is a very competent and smart person with tremendous judgment who would not waste his time.”

Obamology
These appointments, therefore, mark a shift in political attitudes towards scientific advice. When he announced his selections Mr Obama said that promoting science is not just about providing resources (though he has promised to double the budget for basic science research over the next decade), but also about promoting free inquiry and listening to what scientists have to say, “especially when it is inconvenient”. Remarks such as this are causing excitement among researchers, particularly those who have had difficulty making their voices heard over the past few years.

And it is not only attitudes that are changing. As these appointments suggest, shifts in policy on global warming, energy and the protection of the oceans are also on the way. A straw in the wind here is the administration-to-be’s attitude to NASA, America’s space agency.

Mr Obama has said he will give NASA an extra $2 billion to close the gap between the space shuttle, which is due to be withdrawn from service in 2010, and its successor. That sounds like good news for the agency. But according to documents obtained by Space News, a specialist newspaper, his people are also asking NASA some ticklish questions.

They want to know how much money could be saved by cancelling parts of the shuttle’s successor. They have also asked for an estimate of the cost of carrying out all 15 missions that were recommended in a recent review of the agency’s Earth-science programme, which looks at things like the planet’s climate. At the moment, there is no money in the kitty for these missions, nor is much progress expected before 2020. The unstated implication of these questions is that someone is considering moving these missions up NASA’s priority list.

It is also clear that lifting restrictions on embryonic-stem-cell research will be high on the agenda of the new administration. Democrats are already debating whether to overturn those restrictions through executive order or by legislation when they assume control of the government.

The stem-cell question was one that particularly disturbed Dr Carmona when he was surgeon general. In his evidence to Congress, he reported that he was not allowed to speak, or issue reports, on stem cells. Nor on emergency contraception, sex education, mental health, the health of prisoners or global health. The thousands of scientists who, in 2006, signed a petition calling for the restoration of scientific integrity to federal policymaking will also feel vindicated. “See no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil” may sometimes be a good prescription for day to day life, but it is no basis for policymaking. Mr Bush did not seem to realise that. So far, Mr Obama looks as though he does.


Embryonic stem cells

Can I serve you now?
Jan 29th 2009
From The Economist print edition

American attitudes to stem-cell therapies are changing fast

http://media.economist.com/images/20090131/D0509ST1.jpg

FOR the past eight years, America’s government has declined to fund new research into one of the world’s most promising medical technologies: the use of human embryonic stem cells to repair or replace damaged tissue in the diseased and injured. Embryonic stem cells are special for two reasons, one scientific and one ethical. The scientific reason is that they are able to turn into any of the body’s myriad cell types, which is why they might be used in this way. The ethical reason is that, at the moment, harvesting them usually involves killing human embryos. The embryos in question have no future anyway (they are usually “spares” from in vitro fertilisation procedures). But it was this destruction of potential human life that disturbed George Bush and his supporters.

Barack Obama has promised to reverse the ban. When that happens, American academics will no longer have to watch enviously from the sidelines as their colleagues in Australia, Britain, China, the Czech Republic, Israel, Singapore and South Korea push ahead. But though the legislative wheels have yet to start turning, the mood has already shifted.

One sign of this shift came on January 23rd when the country’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted permission for the first clinical trial of a therapy based on human embryonic stem cells to Geron, a firm based in Menlo Park, California. Geron was able to ask for permission, and the FDA was able to grant it, because the ban does not apply to privately financed research. America, it seems, is back in the stem-cell business. :hail::hail::hail:
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13014104

Coming from a family that is very supportive of science and technology, this in particular is probably the most major change that I am excited about in the new administration. :)

http://www.mikero.com/blogpics/darwin-1-sm.gif

:P
I actually laughed out loud. :p

Snip.

For once, I agree with you.

<snip>
There's sopmething to be said for meta-gaming; I do it all the time, especially in RPGs.

It adds a whole level of enjoyment, and story, to games.

Sure, we can hold Obama to a higher standard, but were this not Obama would anyone give a shit? No.

Obama has heating in the White House! WHERES THE CHANGE!

No of course not. And the standard that certain people will hold Obama to is an impossibly high, yet vaguely (if at all) defined and completely arbitrary. The sole purpose is to make it seem like Obama is a failure so they can feel vindicated.

"I hope he fails," as Rush Limbaugh said, and some of his devotees on this forum too. They mean it. What was their real change? They became anti-Americans.

And the standard that certain people will hold Obama to is an impossibly high, yet vaguely (if at all) defined and completely arbitrary.
That's nobody's fault except Obama's. By building himself up to be something so awesome, so inspiring, so revoultionary, it is his own fault that his populistic campaign has met the bitterness of reality with some let down here and dissapointment there. It literally could not have gone any other way, short of him actually being this all-powerful force of good that would totally sweep the nation, the globe and right the wrongs that plague us.

Having never been an Obama-fanatic, I'm excited about some of the things he's doing, indifferent to others and let down by a few issues. But that's just politics as usual and Obama has shown us that, while he may yet prove to be a good President, he is not what he and his campaign painted Barack Obama as.

"I hope he fails," as Rush Limbaugh said, and some of his devotees on this forum too. They mean it. What was their real change? They became anti-Americans.

Oh, how DELIGHTFUL this will be...

Thank you very much, Trostia. *Scampers off, smiling like a jack-o'-lantern*

That's nobody's fault except Obama's.

No, holding an irrational position is the fault of the person holding the irrational position.

Unless we posit that the Dark Lord has mind-control powers, in which case he would indeed be responsible for mind-controlling people.

No, holding an irrational position is the fault of the person holding the irrational position.

Unless we posit that the Dark Lord has mind-control powers, in which case he would indeed be responsible for mind-controlling people.
Oh stop it. Read the rest of my post. Enough with this dark lord garbage.

By building himself up to be something so awesome, so inspiring, so revoultionary, it is his own fault that his populistic campaign has met the bitterness of reality with some let down here and dissapointment there. It literally could not have gone any other way, short of him actually being this all-powerful force of good that would totally sweep the nation, the globe and right the wrongs that plague us.

Having never been an Obama-fanatic, I'm excited about some of the things he's doing, indifferent to others and let down by a few issues. But that's just politics as usual and Obama has shown us that, while he may yet prove to be a good President, he is not what he and his campaign painted Barack Obama as.

Oh stop it. Read the rest of my post.

I did, but why bother with a point-by-point rebuttal when you were so obviously wrong in the first two sentences? People are responsible for their own opinions. Full stop.

It's called personal responsibility.


By building himself up to be something so awesome, so inspiring, so revoultionary, it is his own fault that his populistic campaign has met the bitterness of reality with some let down here and dissapointment there.

We're not talking about "some let down here," I was talking about the arbitrary and completely irrational standards that die-hard Obama haters have set for him. Confirming one's own bias is... one's own fault. Not whoever it is you're biased about, whether its Obama or whoever.

This "so awesome, so inspiring" thing is a strawman.

It literally could not have gone any other way, short of him actually being this all-powerful force of good that would totally sweep the nation, the globe and right the wrongs that plague us.

"all-powerful force of good" is another strawman. See, now you're hitting the part where you're an exact example of holding Obama to irrational, and flat-out made-up standards.

Having never been an Obama-fanatic, I'm excited about some of the things he's doing, indifferent to others and let down by a few issues. But that's just politics as usual and Obama has shown us that, while he may yet prove to be a good President, he is not what he and his campaign painted Barack Obama as.

Neither he nor his campaign painted him as The Messiah, All-Powerful, Force Of Good That Would Totally Sweep The Nation, The Globe, etc etc.

Yeah, real sorry I didn't address your irrelevant strawman bonfire earlier. My bad. ;)

Trostia...were you on sick leave for Obama's entire 2008 Presidential Campaign? This is ridiculous.....

You are in denial and I worry for your health. Here:

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12987505

Trostia...were you on sick leave for Obama's entire 2008 Presidential Campaign? This is ridiculous.....

You are in denial and I worry for your health.

Oh good, skip right to the ad hominem. Right after you complained about me supposedly not reading your posts.

Yeah, I guess I just missed the part in the campaign where Obama said "I, Barrak Obama, am All-Powerful."

Here:

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12987505

Nice story. Doesn't contradict my argument one bit. Color me surprised!

Doesn't contradict my argument one bit. Color me surprised!
It shows that by leading literally almost everyone on in a populistic campaign, Obama will now obviously let down people by having to deal with things realistically as opposed to rather just saying what's popular.

Your post was not worth dealing with because you only focus on people opposing Obama from the Right, while ignoring what we are talking about...which is people on the Left not opposing Obama per se, but rather let down.

That you don't see the difference, nor the populism in his campaign and the way his campaign portrayed candidate Obama...is why I am worried about you.

How many Americans support giving Constitutional rights to detainees in Afghanistan? I'd say it's fairly low. Regardless of whether their opinion is right or wrong, it would be utterly stupid of Obama to push through a policy most Americans don't support...he is a politician first and foremost and he can't afford to waste his popular support to cater to the desires of a small number of people whose views aren't shared by the majority. If he doesn't cater to the majority, he won't be able to get anything good done and he might end up triggering a backlash that brings in far worse people to replace him.

People are expecting gigantic, radical leaps when they're only going to get small, centrist steps, and that has nothing to do with him but rather the realities of a democratic system that generally reflects the will of the people.

It shows that by leading literally almost everyone on in a populistic campaign, Obama will now obviously let down people by having to deal with things realistically as opposed to rather just saying what's popular.
Not really:

"For another, Mr Obama is not breaking as many promises as his former fans imagine. Mostly, he is breaking only promises they think he made. Had they read the small print, they would have seen that he left himself some wiggle room. During his campaign Mr Obama was, as he put it himself, “a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project[ed] their own views”. He gave a lot of people the strong impression that their most urgent goals were also his. As president, he can no longer maintain this illusion."

I don't think your criticism is quite accurate.

That's nobody's fault except Obama's. By building himself up to be something so awesome, so inspiring, so revoultionary, it is his own fault that his populistic campaign has met the bitterness of reality with some let down here and dissapointment there. It literally could not have gone any other way, short of him actually being this all-powerful force of good that would totally sweep the nation, the globe and right the wrongs that plague us.
While I see what you're saying, I can't completely agree with you, especially since it's too soon to call yet.

I mean, what the hell, it's been a month, and a lot of people started howling weeks ago. Some who claim to be let down never really gave him a chance (See the OP for an example), and the talking heads on the so-called "conservative right" have pounced on every little thing (See DK as an example.)

Things take time, and not everything can be changed on day one. People who haven't learned patience and are feeling let down... Well, that's their faults, and not Obama's.

Having never been an Obama-fanatic, I'm excited about some of the things he's doing, indifferent to others and let down by a few issues. But that's just politics as usual and Obama has shown us that, while he may yet prove to be a good President, he is not what he and his campaign painted Barack Obama as.
Who knows: He may yet be.

Not really:

"For another, Mr Obama is not breaking as many promises as his former fans imagine. Mostly, he is breaking only promises they think he made. Had they read the small print, they would have seen that he left himself some wiggle room. During his campaign Mr Obama was, as he put it himself, “a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project[ed] their own views”. He gave a lot of people the strong impression that their most urgent goals were also his. As president, he can no longer maintain this illusion."

I don't think your criticism is quite accurate.
Which is exactly what he did in order to get votes....appeal to everyone and make it seem as though their needs were his priorities; populistic. It was a brilliant plan in order to get elected, and I don't think it's bad, per se. . .

What the article is saying is that he didn't lie to them per se, but rather simply misled them. Either way, pure populism....and pure brilliance. :p

It shows that by leading literally almost everyone on in a populistic campaign, Obama will now obviously let down people by having to deal with things realistically as opposed to rather just saying what's popular.


Your post was not worth dealing with because you only focus on people opposing Obama from the Right, while ignoring what we are talking about...which is people on the Left not opposing Obama per se, but rather let down.

My post was not worth dealing with? Ha. Convenient, but highly inaccurate, your memory is.

Post 111,you decided to pipe up that what I was talking about (people holding Obama to a "impossibly high, yet vaguely (if at all) defined and completely arbitrary" standard) was "nobody's fault except Obama's."

Now that's not convincing, and so you're going on about the Obama let-down from former Obama supporters. Something completely different, but apparently you think no one would notice if you moved the goalposts a bit. Sorry, it's noticeable, and it's made of fail.

That you don't see the difference, nor the populism in his campaign and the way his campaign portrayed candidate Obama...is why I am worried about you.

Yes, so worried that you're calling me crazy and ignorant for successfully smacking your 'rebuttal' down. I'm touched by your concern, truly I am! Why, I ought to apologize for even suggesting your compassion was an ad hominem! :rolleyes:

While I see what you're saying, I can't completely agree with you, especially since it's too soon to call yet.

I mean, what the hell, it's been a month, and a lot of people started howling weeks ago. Some who claim to be let down never really gave him a chance (See the OP for an example), and the talking heads on the so-called "conservative right" have pounced on every little thing (See DK as an example.)

Things take time, and not everything can be changed on day one. People who haven't learned patience and are feeling let down... Well, that's their faults, and not Obama's.


Who knows: He may yet be.
A fair and balanced post, and I say that in all honesty.

Now that's not convincing, and so you're going on about the Obama let-down from former Obama supporters. Something completely different, but apparently you think no one would notice if you moved the goalposts a bit.
Actually, it's directly on topic considering that's what the OP is about. . . Where have you been?

Actually, it's directly on topic considering that's what the OP is about. . . Where have you been?

...you were responding to a post I made, not the OP.

I've apparently been right here reading the thread, both my posts and yours. And you? Somewhere else, it seems?

...you were responding to a post I made, not the OP.
So you were off topic then? If you weren't then it should have been in relation to the OP.

To summarize, we brought 9-11 upon ourselves. Even the official government 9-11 investigative committee concluded that Bin Laden attacked us because we were intruding in the Middle East and especially building military bases in Saudi Arabia.

Yes, the Americans did Pissarro, because of their cowardice in Somalia. The withdrawal from Somalia convinced bin Laden that the US was a cowardly nation, and with enough attacks would eventually withdraw from the Middle East.

Of course, Saddam Hussein helped as well, by invading Kuwait back in 1990, but that is a long story.

The fact is, Obama's argument isn't necessarily WRONG. He's arguing that prisoners of war in a war zone are treated differently, under the constitution, than prisoners under normal confinement. That the constitutional rights binding prisoners in prisons don't necessarily apply to them, due to military concerns.

And he might actually be right. This is an argument as a matter of law. Not of morality or ethics. It's a legal argument, not a moral one. If it turns out those prisoners are abused or tortured, of course I will be against it. But the fact is they're merely making a legal argument. One that is not necessarily wrong.

And of course, if he makes the arguement that because they are seized in a warzone they are POWs, that means they are protected by the Geneva Convention. He hasnt made the arguement yet that they arent.

Once again, Maineiacs is screaming of a rapidly descending sky and crying betrayal, and really has no fucking clue whats going on. Its actually more irritating then the conservatives screaming he's a failure.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...tml?wprss=rss_nation

Review Finds Detainees' Treatment Legal
Pentagon Report on Guantanamo Urges More Interaction for Some, Official Says

By Peter Finn and Del Quentin Wilber
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, February 21, 2009; Page A03

A Pentagon review of conditions in the Guantanamo Bay military prison has concluded that the treatment of detainees meets the requirements of the Geneva Conventions but that prisoners in the highest-security camps should be allowed more religious and social interaction, according to a government official who has read the 85-page document.

The report, which was ordered by President Obama, was prepared by Adm. Patrick M. Walsh, the vice chief of naval operations, and has been delivered to the White House. Obama requested the review as part of an executive order on the planned closure of the prison at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, on the southeastern tip of Cuba.

Another aspect of the closure -- what to do with the approximately 245 detainees -- will be considered by an interagency task force, and the Justice Department yesterday announced the head of that group: Matthew G. Olsen, a 12-year career prosecutor and acting assistant attorney general for national security.

Review teams will examine the case of each detainee and report to Olsen, who will make recommendations to senior officials from Justice and other agencies, including the Departments of State and Defense and the CIA. Those officials will make the final decision on each prisoner.

"The Task Force will consider whether it is possible to transfer or release detained individuals consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States; evaluate whether the government should seek to prosecute detained individuals for crimes they may have committed; and, if none of those options are possible, the Task Force will recommend other lawful means for disposition of the detained individuals," the Justice Department said in a statement.

Defense lawyers for the detainees have complained bitterly about the isolation of some prisoners. They allege that over several years, it has led to mental problems for some detainees. The lawyers also have criticized the force-feeding of prisoners on hunger strike. There are about 40 prisoners on hunger strike, according to Pentagon officials.

Walsh concluded that force-feeding, which involves strapping prisoners to specialized chairs and forcing tubes down one nostril and into their stomachs, is in compliance with the Geneva Conventions' mandate that the lives of prisoners be preserved, according to the government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the report publicly.

Walsh also found that prisoners should be allowed more communal recreation and prayer time. Prisoners in Camp 6 and the highly secret Camp 7 -- which holds such high-value detainees as Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed organizer of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks -- can be held in windowless cells for up to 22 hours a day.

Walsh said the most isolated prisoners, including those in Camp 7, should be allowed to pray and have recess together in rotating groups of at least three for more extended periods of time.

Walsh's report was a broad endorsement of the Pentagon's management of the prisoners at Guantanamo, and it urged prison authorities to continue efforts across the system to maximize the ability of the detainees to socialize and practice their religion, according to the government official. "Continue to avoid actions that are disrespectful to the detainees," Walsh wrote.

Civil liberties groups, including the Center for Constitutional Rights, which is about to issue a report on conditions at Guantanamo, challenged Walsh's findings.

"We do think conditions are in violation of U.S. obligations to treat prisoners humanely, and prisoners are at a physical and mental breaking point," said Pardiss Kebriaei, a staff attorney at the center. "These are not the conclusions we had hoped for under Obama. It's very disappointing."

Attorneys representing detainees singled out force-feeding as particularly abusive.

Ahmed Zaid Salem Zuhair, a Saudi who has been on a hunger strike since the summer of 2005, has lost so much weight during his time in Guantanamo that a federal judge has ordered an independent medical evaluation of him. Zuhair's attorney, Ramzi Kassem, said his client has been strapped to an uncomfortable chair for hours at a time during the feeding and described the procedure as very painful.

"They deliberately use this brutal method that has no medical justification to put pressure on people like my client to give up the hunger strike," Kassem said.

Kassem added that his client, who has been cleared for release, was recently moved to Camp 6, where he is on nearly round-the-clock lockdown in a frigid cell.

Walsh, however, found that the temperature in cells is comfortable and urged officials to continue to use climate controls correctly.

David Remes, another lawyer who represents a hunger striker, called the force-feeding methods "torture." The medical staff often uses tubes that are too big, Remes said, and does not provide lubrication and anesthetic to ease the process.

Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey D. Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman, dismissed Remes's allegations as "false," saying that tubes are appropriately sized and that detainees are offered a variety of lubricants, including olive oil, and a gel anesthetic.

The military prison at Guantanamo Bay has a series of facilities with differing levels of security. Prisoners deemed dangerous or not in compliance with prison rules are held in Camps 5 and 6, where recreation time is restricted and there is little or no opportunity for group activity. In Camp 4, by contrast, detainees can gather in dorms or a common area much of the day, and there are classes, including English and art, as well as a makeshift soccer pitch.

Little is known about Camp 7, which is at a secret location at Guantanamo and off limits even to military lawyers representing the men there. It houses those detainees who were formerly held at secret CIA prisons.

You mean a Naval Officer issued a report that the military wasnt torturing people?

Whats your point? Walsh prepared a report, per Obama's orders, and the military claimed that they werent torturing people. Good for the military. That doesnt say anything about Obama.

How about you pointing out where my previous post - and the posts of others - were lol-worthy? Why should the US constitution apply to POWs held on an Afghan airbase that the US military are currently using? Can you explain to me why Afghan law wouldn't apply to them, if they're not POWs?

Because if we realize what Obama is doing is legal, we cant scream about how he's really Cheney in a mask.

Because if we realize what Obama is doing is legal, we cant scream about how he's really Cheney in a mask.

Cheney in a mask? Everyone knows he's Sauron.

If he were Sauron he'd win both wars with Nazgul and Balrogs.

Not if the other side fields elves and hobbits. And, you know, Talibans are very short, and who knows what kind of ears Osama is hiding under his turban.

Cheney in a mask? Everyone knows he's Sauron.

Its fucking pathetic. I mean, we could argue about the morality of the law, and that might actually one of those intellegent conversations that happens far too rarely on NSG. But no. Instead we have the OP screaming "TRAITOR!" and yelling about peices of sky landing on his head, and DK doing this little happy dance as if some paranoid NSGer overracting means that he's clearly been right all along.

So you were off topic then?

Cute.

If you weren't then it should have been in relation to the OP.

You were responding to me, by disagreeing with me, and quoting the post (by me) which you were replying to. I was in turn responding to someone else.

But yeah, I get it - you didn't really respond to me, since my post was "not worth bothering with." I just imagined it!

The Geneva convention, as a main point, only allow for two groups: Combatants and Non-combatants. There are of course some exceptions. But I'd like to see the legal reasoning for why these people are only entitled to the rights that their captors chose to give them...

Huh? Exceptions? Which ones?

A fair and balanced post, and I say that in all honesty.

If I should be really fair, I should add that I agree that there are some legitimate reasons to criticise Obama already. That shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. He's human and makes mistakes, and any politician who has to deal with the real world has to make compromises. What we should judge him on is the nature and content of these compromises, and not that he made them to begin with.

On the top of my list is that he kept Gates around, but I can understand why he did so. Still, I don't have to like it, but it doesn't make me want to declare his presidency a failure just yet ;)

If I should be really fair, I should add that I agree that there are some legitimate reasons to criticise Obama already. That shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. He's human and makes mistakes, and any politician who has to deal with the real world has to make compromises. What we should judge him on is the nature and content of these compromises, and not that he made them to begin with.

On the top of my list is that he kept Gates around, but I can understand why he did so. Still, I don't have to like it, but it doesn't make me want to declare his presidency a failure just yet ;)

There are plenty of real reasons to critisize Obama. There were policies he had during the election that were worthy of critism IMO too. But howling at phantoms benefits no one.

Huh? Exceptions? Which ones?

Spies and mercenaries, as per Protocol I, articles 46 and 47.

Art. 46. Spies

1. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Conventions or of this Protocol, any member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who falls into the power of an adverse Party while engaging in espionage shall not have the right to the status of prisoner of war and may be treated as a spy.

2. A member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who, on behalf of that Party and in territory controlled by an adverse Party, gathers or attempts to gather information shall not be considered as engaging in espionage if, while so acting, he is in the uniform of his armed forces.

3. A member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who is a resident of territory occupied by an adverse Party and who, on behalf of the Party on which he depends, gathers or attempts to gather information of military value within that territory shall not be considered as engaging in espionage unless he does so through an act of false pretences or deliberately in a clandestine manner. Moreover, such a resident shall not lose his right to the status of prisoner of war and may not be treated as a spy unless he is captured while engaging in espionage.

4. A member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who is not a resident of territory occupied by an adverse Party and who has engaged in espionage in that territory shall not lose his right to the status of prisoner of war and may not be treated as a spy unless he is captured before he has rejoined the armed forces to which he belongs.


Art. 47. Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict; (b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities; (c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party; (d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict; (e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and (f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

Its fucking pathetic. I mean, we could argue about the morality of the law...

Indeed. I've yet to see anyone argue why the US constitution should apply to the detainees at Bagram.

There is a case to be made, but nobody here has stepped up to the plate yet.

Pretty cool, no?

Actually, it is! :tongue:

And that is exactly the kind of Bushian hairsplitting bullshit that I never want to see my government do ever again. (Hint)

Tell me where I am wrong, please, show me where I am wrong. I hate this concept but its to my understanding the one that exists.

That's actually incredibly cool. :D Evan might find himself having NSG-style arguments with his gamer friends about that.

Seconded.

Tell me where I am wrong, please, show me where I am wrong. I hate this concept but its to my understanding the one that exists.
If the US is going to honor its obligations as a signatory to the GC, then it cannot invent new labels to apply to prisoners taken in active warzones just so the GC won't apply to them. The GC is not a carte blanche to be bastards to anyone not specifically named therein. The GC gives rules for the treatment of prisoners regardless of their combatant or non-combatant status. It is not legitimate to make up a category for the purpose of excluding a set of prisoners from GC protections so you can strip them of rights other prisoners would have.

If the US is going to honor its obligations as a signatory to the GC, then it cannot invent new labels to apply to prisoners taken in active warzones just so the GC won't apply to them. The GC is not a carte blanche to be bastards to anyone not specifically named therein. The GC gives rules for the treatment of prisoners regardless of their combatant or non-combatant status. It is not legitimate to make up a category for the purpose of excluding a set of prisoners from GC protections so you can strip them of rights other prisoners would have.

Thank you Murv.

If the US is going to honor its obligations as a signatory to the GC, then it cannot invent new labels to apply to prisoners taken in active warzones just so the GC won't apply to them. The GC is not a carte blanche to be bastards to anyone not specifically named therein. The GC gives rules for the treatment of prisoners regardless of their combatant or non-combatant status. It is not legitimate to make up a category for the purpose of excluding a set of prisoners from GC protections so you can strip them of rights other prisoners would have.

The assumption of course being that the Geneva Convention overrules what the US says and does.

The assumption of course being that the Geneva Convention overrules what the US says and does.

Yes. It. DOES. That's not an "assumption". That's a treaty the US chose to bind itself to, regarding the rights of PEOPLE.

Yes. It. DOES. That's not an "assumption". That's a treaty the US chose to bind itself to, regarding the rights of PEOPLE.

The US, as a sovereign nation, chooses to sign certain treaties and not sign other treaties as matters of international relations. It is not, however, bound by any of them.

The US, as a sovereign nation, chooses to sign certain treaties and not sign other treaties as matters of international relations. It is not, however, bound by any of them.

Then get your bases the fuck out of Okinawa, NOW, as Japan isn't bound to shelter them either.

This little excuse you neocons love to have seemingly does not apply when it's about a treaty YOU care about, now does it? Because that's what that is, a poor excuse to try and explain away this kind of idiotic thought. If you don't want to abide by a treaty, then don't fucking sign it. But don't come crying to me when YOUR soldiers lie there, decapitated, about how uncouth your enemies are. And don't you DARE claim moral superiority to me EVER AGAIN.

Then get your bases the fuck out of Okinawa, NOW, as Japan isn't bound to shelter them either.

This little excuse you neocons love to have seemingly does not apply when it's about a treaty YOU care about, now does it? Because that's what that is, a poor excuse to try and explain away this kind of idiotic thought. If you don't want to abide by a treaty, then don't fucking sign it. But don't come crying to me when YOUR soldiers lie there, decapitated, about how uncouth your enemies are. And don't you DARE claim moral superiority to me EVER AGAIN.
Take. It. Easy.

Your manner of posting negates from any kind of argument you are trying to make, and just shows instead how ugly you make whatever you are saying sound.

The mods have warned you before about posting in that manner. . .

Take. It. Easy.

Your manner of posting negates from any kind of argument you are trying to make, and just shows instead how ugly you make whatever you are saying sound.

The mods have warned you before about posting in that manner. . .

1- And yet somehow I have more credit around here than you do.

2- The mods have "warned me" when you complained about how I was dealing with you, a person who would gladly see me tortured to death over a dickwaving between economical systems.

1- And yet somehow I have more credit around here than you do.

2- The mods have "warned me" when you complained about how I was dealing with you, a person who would gladly see me tortured to death over a dickwaving between economical systems.

Wow :) How cool you are! Comparing online cool-factor on an anonymous internet forum. Pathetic. :p

Now, now. It was just a friendly warning about how disgustingly unappealing your manner of posting was, that's all. :)

The US, as a sovereign nation, chooses to sign certain treaties and not sign other treaties as matters of international relations. It is not, however, bound by any of them.

Yes, it is. You should read the constitution. Specifically, Article IV, Paragraph 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land

A treaty, once made, becomes incoporated into Federal law.

Yes, it is. You should read the constitution. Specifically, Article IV, Paragraph 2:



A treaty, once made, becomes incoporated into Federal law.

Hey! No fair! You're a lawyer! You know stuff! I can only point out the questionable morals in his post, you can go right after the legal facts. :p

(Just for the record, splendid move.)

(Though, to be fair, a treaty made ALSO becomes federal law here.)

1- And yet somehow I have more credit around here than you do.

No you don't.

No you don't.

I didn't say I have much, I said I have more than he does.

I didn't say I have much, I said I have more than he does.

I know what you said. It's an internet forum; you don't have "credit" around here. Remember Keruvalia?

I know what you said. It's an internet forum; you don't have "credit" around here. Remember Keruvalia?

*Sighs*

Okay, I hope you also know what I meant. :p

Anyways. Who?

The assumption of course being that the Geneva Convention overrules what the US says and does.

Wrong. Here's why: Under US law, any international treaty that the US agrees to be bound by, via being a signatory to the treaty, becomes US law with the full force and effect thereof.

Therefore, by signing onto the GC, the US adopted the GC as US law. Therefore the GC are de facto US law. Therefore, there is no question of the GC superseding US law. On account of it is US law for all intents and purposes.

EDIT: See also Neo Art, above, re the US Constitution. Seriously, if you're going to make an assertion of fact in support of your argument you really should make an effort to find out whether you are actually right before you go posting in public.

The US, as a sovereign nation, chooses to sign certain treaties and not sign other treaties as matters of international relations. It is not, however, bound by any of them.

Actually, yes, it is. The Constitution says any treaty signed by the US becomes a matter of law.

I wouldnt make such definitive statements when you dont know what youre talking about.

The US, as a sovereign nation, chooses to sign certain treaties and not sign other treaties as matters of international relations. It is not, however, bound by any of them.

I have been beaten to the punch, so look above :wink:

Actually, yes, it is. The Constitution says any treaty signed by the US becomes a matter of law.

I wouldnt make such definitive statements when you dont know what youre talking about.

Alright, but then its the US Constitution we're following, not the Geneva Conventions.

Alright, but then its the US Constitution we're following, not the Geneva Conventions.

. . . . . wow

. . . . . wow

And even then, I'd love to see some enforcement. Gitmo is a prime example. I would say there was violation of the Geneva Conventions (or US Constitution, put it however you would like) and the enforcement only occurred when popular public opinion turned against it. There are no incentives to follow such laws.

Alright, but then its the US Constitution we're following, not the Geneva Conventions.

...oh boy...

The Geneva Conventions are - by your own Constitution - treated like a Federal Law. I'm a Brazilian and I know this. You're an American and you need to learn this.

And even then, I'd love to see some enforcement. Gitmo is a prime example. I would say there was violation of the Geneva Conventions (or US Constitution, put it however you would like) and the enforcement only occurred when popular public opinion turned against it. There are no incentives to follow such laws.

Okay, so, if your Government stops torturing people I'll give it a lollipop!

Incentive? The GOVERNMENT OF THE MOST POWERFUL NATION ON EARTH is a child now, that it needs incentive to behave within norms it sets for itself?

...oh boy...

The Geneva Convention is - by your own Constitution - treated like a Federal Law.

No. Its not treated like federal law, it is federal law. The Geneva Convention is international law, but the US Constitution is just the law of a single state.

or, as seen below...

I think he's saying that the GC is to be followed only because the Constitution stipulates that any signed treaty is law. Thusly the Constitution is still the highest law in the land, not any treaties.

Okay, so, if your Government stops torturing people I'll give it a lollipop!

Incentive? The GOVERNMENT OF THE MOST POWERFUL NATION ON EARTH is a child now, that it needs incentive to behave within norms it sets for itself?

You're probably right... incentives wouldn't do anything anyways. What I'm talking about is punishments for breaking the international law, which are absent since international relations is anarchical. I guess when I say the US needs incentives what I really mean is the US needs to know that the costs of breaking it would be too high to justify it.

They aren't, since there is no cost of breaking it, beyond, say, international outrage. And I think we'll handle that quite nicely.

...oh boy...

The Geneva Convention (singular; really, I can tell you know what you're talking about) is - by your own Constitution - treated like a Federal Law. I'm a Brazilian and I know this. You're an American and you need to learn this.

I think he's saying that the GC is to be followed only because the Constitution stipulates that any signed treaty is law. Thusly the Constitution is still the highest law in the land, not any treaties.

I think he's saying that the GC is to be followed only because the Constitution stipulates that any signed treaty is law. Thusly the Constitution is still the highest law in the land, not any treaties.

Meaning, in short, that yes, it still has to be followed.

I think he's saying that the GC is to be followed only because the Constitution stipulates that any signed treaty is law. Thusly the Constitution is still the highest law in the land, not any treaties.

By that measure, however, that 'highest law in the land' says you're bound by Geneva Conventions and Protocols. So - there's no argument that they don't apply, even from a Consititutional viewpoint.

I think he's saying that the GC is to be followed only because the Constitution stipulates that any signed treaty is law. Thusly the Constitution is still the highest law in the land, not any treaties.

but that still is hopelessly nitpicky. He basically argued that his statement "we're not bound to follow any treaty" is still true because, when a treaty is signed, it becomes federal law, and as such, we're not really following the TREATY, just FEDERAL LAW. so his statement is still true!

Which, however, still makes his premise false. It may be we're obligated to follow "Federal law" not "International law" but when the two are one in the same, the distinction is meaningless. We may not be obligated, in an entirely literal sense to follow "The Treaty" but we are obligated to follow the terms of the treaty, as they have been incorporated into federal law.

He was trying to argue against the second, and now trying to weasle his way into making it sound like he was arguing the first.

You're probably right... incentives wouldn't do anything anyways. What I'm talking about is punishments for breaking the international law, which are absent since international relations is anarchical. I guess when I say the US needs incentives what I really mean is the US needs to know that the costs of breaking it would be too high to justify it.

They aren't.

Even if its inhumanity and ineffectiveness weren't already enough to stop anyone with common sense, that would remain the reason why Bush should be tried for war crimes.

And even then, I'd love to see some enforcement. Gitmo is a prime example. I would say there was violation of the Geneva Conventions (or US Constitution, put it however you would like) and the enforcement only occurred when popular public opinion turned against it. There are no incentives to follow such laws.

no, enforcement occured when inmates sued the government and won. That's sort of how the process works.

Meaning, in short, that yes, it still has to be followed.

Not quite. Meaning that, if the Constitution were ever amended in a contradictory way to an international treaty the US was party to, the Constitution would overrule that treaty, just like it would any other federal laws that were contradictory.

By that measure, however, that 'highest law in the land' says you're bound by Geneva Conventions and Protocols. So - there's no argument that they don't apply, even from a Consititutional viewpoint.

I chose to separate the Geneva Convention, international treaty, and the US Constitution including the Geneva Convention.

no, enforcement occured when inmates sued the government and won.

And what happened to those inmates?

Not quite. Meaning that, if the Constitution were ever amended in a contradictory way to an international treaty the US was party to, the Constitution would overrule that treaty, just like it would any other federal laws that were contradictory.

Well, good thing the blue states are there, then, innit? Else there'd be already a motion to include "we can torture whoever we want because we're MORALLY SUPERIOR" as article... (Help me out here, Neo)... of the US Constitution.

Even if its inhumanity and ineffectiveness weren't already enough to stop anyone with common sense, that would remain the reason why Bush should be tried for war crimes.

Its nice that you think common sense factors into the equation, but you're wrong. The only thing that matters when you are talking about international relations is security, and security is a zero-sum game.

Well, good thing the blue states are there, then, innit? Else there'd be already a motion to include "we can torture whoever we want because we're MORALLY SUPERIOR" as article... (Help me out here, Neo)... of the US Constitution.

Its not about torturing people. It is about limiting the sovereignty of the United States per international "law".

I chose to separate the Geneva Convention, international treaty, and the US Constitution including the Geneva Convention.


You can 'choose' to separate to your hearts content. However, since we aren't discussing your opinions, but the national and international observation of law, your imagined 'separation' is for your own amusement only.

And what happened to those inmates?

they were afforded constitutional protections...

they were afforded constitutional protections...

When?

Its nice that you think common sense factors into the equation, but you're wrong. The only thing that matters when you are talking about international relations is security, and security is a zero-sum game.



Its not about torturing people. It is about limiting the sovereignty of the United States per international "law".

1- You're right. One in which smart people don't torture because it's exactly the WRONG way to GET security, seeing as it's ineffective. "Security" means jack shit in a pro-torture argument.

2- It becomes, per your Constitution, the law of the land. By a, guess, sovereign choice. Yes, it IS about torturing people. Because I never - EVER - saw a use of the word "sovereignty" by conservative Americans that wasn't about the supposed right to torture.

When?

When they won the lawsuit.

Its nice that you think common sense factors into the equation, but you're wrong. The only thing that matters when you are talking about international relations is security, and security is a zero-sum game.


It's nice that you think your opinion relates to something real, but you're wrong. Security is not a zero-sum game.


Its not about torturing people. It is about limiting the sovereignty of the United States per international "law".

Even if you were right, the 'sovereignty' you are discussing, was negotiated to it's current status BY the United States. No one has taken sovereignty, but the States HAVE surrendered some.

They are now expected to honour that. They are now legally bound to honour that. And - perhaps most important, in light of your argument - they are now CONSTITUTIONALLY bound to honour it.

but that still is hopelessly nitpicky. He basically argued that his statement "we're not bound to follow any treaty" is still true because, when a treaty is signed, it becomes federal law, and as such, we're not really following the TREATY, just FEDERAL LAW. so his statement is still true!

I don't think its nitpick-y, I think its an important distinction. That is, the difference between international law and the law of a nation is important.

Security is not a zero-sum game.
Oh yeah? Would you care to elaborate?

When?

It's not my job to do your homework for you. Start here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush)

Oh yeah? Would you care to elaborate?

Hypocritical given your own failure to support? But - sure.

Treaties with strong allies are not an uncommon mechanism for preventing hostilities. Many weaker nations banding together, or a weaker nation connecting with a stronger ally, are common mechanisms.

In those situations - the presence of other strong, secure allies does not take away from the security or strength of the nation(s) involved in the alliance - thus, not zero-sum.

Treaties with strong allies are not an uncommon mechanism for preventing hostilities. Many weaker nations banding together, or a weaker nation connecting with a stronger ally, are common mechanisms.

In those situations - the presence of other strong, secure allies does not take away from the security or strength of the nation(s) involved in the alliance - thus, not zero-sum.

Alliances only exist as long as they benefit those in them. If a weak nation makes a treaty with a strong nation, the strong nation will only uphold such a treaty as long as it is in their benefit.

However, I think you misunderstand what zero-sum means - if such an alliance occurs, the security of all other nations will decrease while the security of those involved in the alliance increases, "thus, zero-sum."

The alternative would be if two nations formed an alliance, and while their security increased everyone else's security stayed the same. Those are your two options.

Alliances only exist as long as they benefit those in them. If a weak nation makes a treaty with a strong nation, the strong nation will only uphold such a treaty as long as it is in their benefit.

However, I think you misunderstand what zero-sum means - if such an alliance occurs, the security of all other nations will decrease while the security of those involved in the alliance increases, "thus, zero-sum."

Nope, horseshit.

The security of other nations ONLY decreases if the allied nations are aggressive, which is the fly in the ointment of your argument.

Besides, I'm not interested in pursuing this as a highjack. You made a ridiculous assertion, which was immediately negated, and I see no profit in entertaining it further.

Alliances only exist as long as they benefit those in them. If a weak nation makes a treaty with a strong nation, the strong nation will only uphold such a treaty as long as it is in their benefit.

However, I think you misunderstand what zero-sum means - if such an alliance occurs, the security of all other nations will decrease while the security of those involved in the alliance increases, "thus, zero-sum."

The alternative would be if two nations formed an alliance, and while their security increased everyone else's security stayed the same. Those are your two options.

History disproves this theory.

Alright, but then its the US Constitution we're following, not the Geneva Conventions.
As has been pointed out by others, this is a bullshit distinction. You are just trying to redefine the argument in an attempt to make yourself appear less wrong, but you are failing. US law stipulates that the US will be bound by the treaties it signes. Period.

And even then, I'd love to see some enforcement. Gitmo is a prime example. I would say there was violation of the Geneva Conventions (or US Constitution, put it however you would like) and the enforcement only occurred when popular public opinion turned against it. There are no incentives to follow such laws.
More BS. The fact that a corrupt government blatantly violated its obligations does not mean the obligations don't exist.

I chose to separate the Geneva Convention, international treaty, and the US Constitution including the Geneva Convention.
And an adorable little attempt it was. But the wording of the law doesn't do that, and since it is the law we are discussing, your personal choices are utterly irrelevant. You remain wrong.

Its nice that you think common sense factors into the equation, but you're wrong.
I agree that common sense does not factor into the equation of your arguments.

The only thing that matters when you are talking about international relations is security, and security is a zero-sum game.
I don't think "zero-sum game" means what you think it means. What you are really arguing for here is permission to torture, abuse, and "disappear" people at the government's whim. Dick Cheney, is that you?

Its not about torturing people. It is about limiting the sovereignty of the United States per international "law".
And yet more BS. Are you unable or simply unwilling to understand that, if the US obeys its own laws by obeying the terms of its treaties, that does not limit the US's sovereignty?

And why do you prefer to keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into this hole rather than just admit that you did not know that the Constitution states that the US is bound by the treaties it signs and then retract your earlier, erroneous comment?

I don't think its nitpick-y, I think its an important distinction. That is, the difference between international law and the law of a nation is important.
It's obvious that you would like this distinction to be important. It's even more obvious that you really don't understand what you are talking about now any more than you did before when you made your initial mistake.

The security of other nations ONLY decreases if the allied nations are aggressive, which is the fly in the ointment of your argument.

Aggression doesn't matter. If two completely passive nations formed an alliance with one another, they would have more power than all other nations. Thus, all other nations' securities would be threatened, because what guarantee do they have that the alliance will continue to remain passive? The basic problem with the liberal attitude towards international relations is that there are no guarantees. None at all.

And this line of argument is hardly a "threadjack", it is the root of my assertion. International relations is a realist's game, which is why treaties don't matter and what I was intending to say initially.

I don't think "zero-sum game" means what you think it means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game

Of course I am talking about a zero-sum game as it relates to theories of international relations, but its the same principle.

I don't think its nitpick-y, I think its an important distinction. That is, the difference between international law and the law of a nation is important.


You made a stupid claim that was based in ignorance and were immediatly shown you were wrong. Man up and stop trying to pretend you knew it all along.

Aggression doesn't matter. If two completely passive nations formed an alliance with one another, they would have more power than all other nations. Thus, all other nations' securities would be threatened, because what guarantee do they have that the alliance will continue to remain passive? The basic problem with the liberal attitude towards international relations is that there are no guarantees. None at all.

And this line of argument is hardly a "threadjack", it is the root of my assertion. International relations is a realist's game, which is why treaties don't matter and what I was intending to say initially.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game

Of course I am talking about a zero-sum game as it relates to theories of international relations, but its the same principle.
The root of your assertion was the claimed "fact" that the US is not bound by any of the treaties it has signed.

That claim has been debunked by simple reference to the US Constitution.

Argument closed.

These further arguments about your choices and separations and theories about how things might work if the universe worked the way you imagine it might are, in fact, a threadjack -- and a particularly pointless one.

And an adorable little attempt it was.

I like my girls full of piss and vinegar! :D

(Not that I'm laying claim to you as my girl, Mur. >.>)

(Open though I am. :fluffle: )

These further arguments about your choices and separations and theories about how things might work if the universe worked the way you imagine it might are, in fact, a threadjack.

And transparent back-peddling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game

We know what a zero-sum game is. We're aware of its definition. We don't disagree with you because of a difference in definition. We disagree with you because you're wrong. It's not a matter of terminology, it's a matter of fact.

We know what a zero-sum game is. We're aware of its definition. We don't disagree with you because of a difference in definition. We disagree with you because you're wrong. It's not a matter of terminology, it's a matter of fact.

Can you explain this to me?

To all: fine, I was wrong. Treaties become US law and so we have to follow them. The argument has evolved and while I admit I was wrong then I do not give ground now.

Can you explain this to me?

To all: fine, I was wrong. Treaties become US law and so we have to follow them. The argument has evolved and while I admit I was wrong then I do not give ground now.
The argument has not evolved, unless you think a mistake blowing up into a hot-air storm is "evolution."

Your theories about how zero-sum applies to international security policy are just as suspect as everything else you've said on this subject because you first brought them up in defense of your mistake . Are you sure you don't want to take a break and think about this a bit?

Aggression doesn't matter.


I told you, I'm not indulging your threadjack.


And this line of argument is hardly a "threadjack" it is the root of my assertion.


This tells us two things:

1) You're a liar, because you cited sovereignty as your basis, not security.

And:

2) That your 'assertion' is also bullshit, because the excuse you're using to support it, is bullshit.


International relations is a realist's game, which is why treaties don't matter and what I was intending to say initially.

You're trying to shift goalposts now you've been discredited.

You said: "The US, as a sovereign nation, chooses to sign certain treaties and not sign other treaties as matters of international relations. It is not, however, bound by any of them."

When pressed on this, due to the Constitutional requirement that those international treaties to which we are signatory, be treated as national law, you said: "Alright, but then its the US Constitution we're following, not the Geneva Conventions".

When it was explained to you that the Constitution SAYS we have to follow Geneva Conventions an Protocols, you made some inane statement about how you: "chose to separate the Geneva Convention, international treaty, and the US Constitution including the Geneva Convention".

And now you're arguing that: "International relations is a realist's game, which is why treaties don't matter and what I was intending to say initially".

So - you were either lying and/or ill-informed to start with, and are now trying desperately to recant your earlier inanity without admitting it. 'Security' was NOT your original argument, was NOT one of your transitional arguments, and has only appeared NOW as a hijack.

You can always tell the ones who just finished their first IR course at college....

Your theories about how zero-sum applies to international security policy are just as suspect as everything else you've said on this subject. Are you sure you don't want to take a break and think about it a bit?

They aren't my theories.

You can always tell the ones who just finished their first IR course at college....

At least you're on the right track...

They aren't my theories.

Which is a brave thing to admit. Recycling someone else's ideas is perhaps worse than having bad ideas of your own, because at least your own bad ideas have the value of being original thought.

Can you explain this to me?

I'm a translator, not a professor, but let me try. Someone there who knows the Linguistics terminology in English can also chip in, please.

A "signifier" is an object or a concept. As such, "A game in which whoever wins X takes away a total of X from the losers", would be the "signifier" for the "signified" term, "zero-sum game".

We know what what the signifier-signified connection is. We know a "zero-sum game" is "A game in which whoever wins X takes away a total of X from the losers". We don't need wikipedia articles to inform us what a zero-sum game is. We know what it is.

And precisely because we know what it is, we also know your definition of national security as one is wrong. Because national security, not being "A game in which whoever wins X takes away a total of X from the losers", is not a zero-sum game.

Did I manage to make that clear enough for you to understand?

Which is a brave thing to admit. Recycling someone else's ideas is perhaps worse than having bad ideas of your own, because at least your own bad ideas have the value of being original thought.

You can call them bad ideas, but they are valid theories of international relations, and ones which I espouse.

Because national security, not being "A game in which whoever wins X takes away a total of X from the losers", is not a zero-sum game.

We disagree here, which is fine. I'm a realist and you're a liberal.

You can always tell the ones who just finished their first IR course at college....
How can one even get into an IR course in college without knowing how to check one's own facts?

They aren't my theories.

That would explain your obvious lack of understanding of their meaning and proper application.

They aren't my theories.

Indeed. Theories require more thought than you seem to have put into your opinions.

That would explain your obvious lack of understanding of their meaning and proper application.
Can you please explain to me the proper application of realist theories? Realism is the simple one, at least, so it shouldn't take too long.

We disagree here, which is fine. I'm a realist and you're a liberal.

Partly right, I AM a liberal. You, however, are not a realist. You are a guy that has been proven wrong twice or thrice in the same thread about a subject you seem to claim to dominate, and talks condescendingly to people who, backed by actual knowledge and evidence, disagree with you.

How can one even get into an IR course in college without knowing how to check one's own facts?

What's an IR cou...

Oh, right, International Relations?

We disagree here, which is fine. I'm a realist and you're a liberal.

I question how much you understand either of those terms.

Yeah, you definitally just took your IR midterm.

You can call them bad ideas, but they are valid theories of international relations, and ones which I espouse.



We disagree here, which is fine. I'm a realist and you're a liberal.
The bolded is a bullshit cop-out sentence that signals to me that I should discount everything the poster says about everything because he's just a smoke-blower. You may want to reconsider including it in your repertoire.

Also, if you're such a "realist", how come you never bothered to educate yourself about the real rules concerning US law and policy? Is it possible to be a "realist" if you live in a fantasy world?

The bolded is a bullshit cop-out sentence that signals to me that I should discount everything the poster says about everything because he's just a smoke-blower. You may want to reconsider including it in your repertoire.

Also, if you're such a "realist", how come you never bothered to educate yourself about the real rules concerning US law and policy? Is it possible to be a "realist" if you live in a fantasy world?

Perhaps you should study the schools of thought in international relations.

Here's a helpful link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_relations#Realism

You can call them bad ideas, but they are valid theories of international relations, and ones which I espouse.


Despite the obvious flaws.

That says more about you, than it does about the 'theory'.

Perhaps you should study the schools of thought in international relations.

Oh dude. Bad move.

Oh dude. Bad move.

Oh dude. Read the link. I admit, its not where I learned about intl relations, but its a start.

Perhaps you should study the schools of thought in international relations.

Here's a helpful link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_relations#Realism

Let me get this straight...

You obviously just finished your midterm on your first IR in college, and, after you go around saying things that are flat out wrong, talking down to people when they tell you that you are wrong, and using the most basic terminology possible to talk about international relations, you tell someone else to get informed?

Oh Christ.

You obviously just finished your midterm on your first IR in college

Its good that that's obvious to you. Perhaps you are more informed than I thought.

Oh dude. Read the link. I admit, its not where I learned about intl relations, but its a start.

Oh, I'm not talking about your annoying condescension. I'm talking about your annoying condescension to a poster who will very easily rip you to very small shreds over it, and with good reason.

Can you please explain to me the proper application of realist theories? Realism is the simple one, at least, so it shouldn't take too long.
The first requirement of a "realist" is that you need to talk about reality.

A person who just spins imagined scenarios out of nothing but pure abstract theory is not a realist.

A realist would not make an assertion of fact about something of which he knew absolutely nothing. A realist who wanted to make a claim about what US policy and law were, would look up US policy and law, starting with the Constitution.

A realist would know that, in reality, "liberal" and "realist" are not mutually exclusive, because he would have observed the overlap in...say it with me now...the real world.

A realist, having made a gross error of fact, would not spend pages and pages flailing about trying to first to justify and then to weasel away from his mistake.

You are not a realist, VC.

The first requirement of a "realist" is that you need to talk about reality.

Realism

Realism focuses on state security and power above all else. Any cooperation between states is explained as functional in order to maximize each individual state's security (as opposed to more idealistic reasons). Many realists saw World War II as the vindication of their theory. It should be noted that classical writers such as Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Hobbes are often cited as the "founding fathers" of realism by contemporary self-described realists. However, while their work may support realist doctrine, it is not likely that they would have classified themselves as realists (in this sense of the term).

Or, basically that. Maybe I'm no intl relations scholar like Knights of Liberty, but I do know a thing or two. I know that arguing on the internet is like jacking off, but sometimes I don't just post links for my own pleasure.

Or, that. Maybe I'm no intl relations scholar like Knights of Liberty, but I do know a thing or two. And I know that arguing on the internet is like jacking off, but sometimes I don't just post links for my own pleasure.

Cute.

Care to point out where is it said in that paragraph that strenghtening one's national security weakens others'?

Care to point out where is it said in that paragraph that strenghtening one's national security weakens others'?

Realists believe that intl relations is a zero-sum game. Even someone who just took their intro to intl relations midterm would know that. In contrast, liberals believe its a positive-sum game.

Realists believe that intl relations is a zero-sum game. Even someone who just took their intro to intl relations midterm would know that. Liberals believe its a positive-sum game.

Again: Cute. Care to point out where is it said in that paragraph that strenghtening one's national security weakens others'?

Perhaps you should study the schools of thought in international relations.

Here's a helpful link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_relations#Realism
You're hilarious, you know that? This is the third time that, after you have been caught out making a dumbass and obvious mistake, you turn to talking down to ME. How did those other times work out for you? How much of an advantage did you gain from them? What do you think you'll gain this time?

Your little wiki overview adds nothing to the conversation, nor does it contradict my statement that YOU don't understand the Realism school of IR thought. I base my statement on observation of your arguments which have been wrong on point after point after point.

Getting snobby towards me doesn't make you look less wrong, only more peevish.

Maybe I'm no intl relations scholar like Knights of Liberty

Im flattered, but Id hardly call myself an International Relations scholar.

Again: Cute. Care to point out where is it said in that paragraph that strenghtening one's national security weakens others'?

Let me get this straight: it doesn't say it in my quoted Wikipedia paragraph, so its not true?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_relations_theory#Realism

Some realists (offensive realists) believe that states are inherently aggressive, that territorial expansion is constrained only by opposing powers, while others (defensive realists) believe that states are obsessed with the security and continuation of the state's existence. The defensive view can lead to a security dilemma where increasing one's own security can bring along greater instability as the opponent(s) builds up its own arms, making security a zero-sum game where only relative gains can be made.

You're hilarious, you know that? This is the third time that, after you have been caught out making a dumbass and obvious mistake, you turn to talking down to ME. How did those other times work out for you? How much of an advantage did you gain from them? What do you think you'll gain this time?

Your little wiki overview adds nothing to the conversation, nor does it contradict my statement that YOU don't understand the Realism school of IR thought. I base my statement on observation of your arguments which have been wrong on point after point after point.

Getting snobby towards me doesn't make you look less wrong, only more peevish.

And... time.

Cute.

Care to point out where is it said in that paragraph that strenghtening one's national security weakens others'?

Under 'realist' theory, that's not an unreasonable premise, actually, if flawed. The 'arms race' is an example of the mechanisms underpinning 'realism'.

'Realism', per se, is not a bad theory - but like most other ideas, it should never be considered to be infallible. And that's where VC seems to be falling down - he seems to think you have to pick one of the theories, and subscribe to it.

Let me get this straight: it doesn't say it in my quoted Wikipedia paragraph, so its not true?

Until you BACK IT UP SOMEHOW, it isn't, no. Is that concept beyond your grasp?

Or, basically that. Maybe I'm no intl relations scholar like Knights of Liberty, but I do know a thing or two. I know that arguing on the internet is like jacking off, but sometimes I don't just post links for my own pleasure.

No, I maintain that you don't know jack about shit on this issue. And the fact that you, like you've done before in other threads, are now trying to turn this entire debate into a personal argument with ME about your pet theory of the day -- instead of continuing to defend your on-topic arguments -- is nothing more than a deflection indicating that you have lost your points and have nowhere left to go with your arguments.

Or, basically that. Maybe I'm no intl relations scholar like Knights of Liberty, but I do know a thing or two. I know that arguing on the internet is like jacking off, but sometimes I don't just post links for my own pleasure.
Well, two things.

1. How is arguing on the internet like jacking off?

2. I'm an international relations scholar and the below is wrong for exactly this reason:

We disagree here, which is fine. I'm a realist and you're a liberal.
Realism and Liberalism (in the sense of international relations) do not have to oppose each other off the bat like you seem to be implying here.

Realism is putting the goals, needs, wants and security of your own nation first, placing an emphasis on international competition rather than cooperation.

Liberalism is a political philosophy placing emphasis on small government, free-market and individual liberties, believing in gradual evolutionary change and accepting less equality for more freedom.

As such, the two concepts are dealing with totally different fields and cannot be so easily blended, as you were trying to do so.

Understood?

Im flattered, but Id hardly call myself an International Relations scholar.
I was going to ask . . . :p

Liberalism is a political philosophy placing emphasis on small government, free-market and individual liberties, believing in gradual evolutionary change and accepting less equality for more freedom.
Nooooo. Liberalism in intl relations is something different. Go look it up yourself, I'm done, right after...

I maintain that you don't know jack about shit on this issue.
Whereas you have yet to show any knowledge of intl relations theory. At least I'm trying, right?

Yes, I have subscribed to the realist theory, but I don't think that's really so bad. I picked it not because I felt I had to, but because it made sense to me.

I was going to ask . . . :p

I can carry on a debate without appearing ignorant, but Im much better versed in political theory and law, mostly public law*.

*Id never claim to know more then the lawyers, however. Until I am one at least:p

Yes, I have subscribed to the realist theory, but I don't think that's really so bad. I picked it not because I felt I had to, but because it made sense to me.

You do realize that, in humanities, most theories are like theories, not like RELIGIONS, right?

Nooooo. Liberalism in intl relations is something different. Go look it up yourself, I'm done, right after...


Neoliberalism does place an emphasis on those things. Classical liberalism is far more concerned with natural rights.

Liberalism is a political philosophy placing emphasis on small government, free-market and individual liberties, believing in gradual evolutionary change and accepting less equality for more freedom.

Clarification, please: The above sounds more like US Libertarianism and (if I understand it right, which is not guaranteed) UK Liberalism.

In the US, "liberalism" tends to tolerate bigger government while demanding more equality, on the philosophical grounds that equality is integral to freedom and individual liberties. US liberalism posits a slightly more regulated market, though still much more free than leftist philosophies. Also, as far as I know, there is nothing in US politics, such as a party, that would capitalize "liberalism."

Maybe I'm wrong about that?

Clarification, please: The above sounds more like US Libertarianism and (if I understand it right, which is not guaranteed) UK Liberalism.

In the US, "liberalism" tends to tolerate bigger government while demanding more equality, on the philosophical grounds that equality is integral to freedom and individual liberties. US liberalism posits a slightly more regulated market, though still much more free than leftist philosophies. Also, as far as I know, there is nothing in US politics, such as a party, that would capitalize "liberalism."

Maybe I'm wrong about that?



In international relations, a Neoliberal would believe all those things TAI mentioned. Classical liberals are mostly concerned with "natural rights". "Liberals" are different from "liberals". One can be politically conservative and "Liberal" when it comes to international relations. Many of our politicians are.

Nooooo. Liberalism in intl relations is something different. Go look it up yourself, I'm done, right after...


Whereas you have yet to show any knowledge of intl relations theory. At least I'm trying, right?

Yes, I have subscribed to the realist theory, but I don't think that's really so bad. I picked it not because I felt I had to, but because it made sense to me.
Trying and failing.

I will leave it to other readers to judge which of us sounds less like we understand the words we are typing.

Also, I'm not the one who said you acted as if you had to pick a theory. That was GnI. Even when you try to focus on just one poster, you still can't keep track of who says what in the thread? That's sad.

In international relations, a Neoliberal would believe all those things TAI mentioned. Classical liberals are mostly concerned with "natural rights". "Liberals" are different from "liberals". One can be politically conservative and "Liberal" when it comes to international relations. Many of our politicians are.
What I meant was that there is no Liberal party in the US, no organization or established single school of thought that would warrant capitalization. Unlike the UK and other countries, which do have a Liberal party. So in the UK, for instance, there may be a difference between a "liberal" (lower case) and a "Liberal" (upper case). In the US, there is no upper case "Liberal." Not really, at any rate.

Also, perhaps I'm wrong again, but I thought "neoliberal" was a label some neoconservatives came up to set off some of their theories.

What I meant was that there is no Liberal party in the US, no organization or established single school of thought that would warrant capitalization. Unlike the UK and other countries, which do have a Liberal party.

Also, perhaps I'm wrong again, but I thought "neoliberal" was a label some neoconservatives came up to set off some of their theories.

A big "L" liberal is someone who subscribes to the Liberal school of IR. It has nothing to do with domestic political parties. Almost every politician in the US is a "Liberal". You can tell by how much they use human rights as a justification for their actions (whether they mean it or not is totally different).

A little "l" liberal is what the US usually is refering to when they mention liberal. Progressive social policies, government intervention in the market, etc.

A "neoliberal" is an actual IR school of thought.

The wiki page VC linked earlier isnt actually an awful way to learn real quick the basics about Neolibs.

From my textbook itself:

Liberalism as an ideology (rather than a political attitude) places a high priority on individual political and economic freedom. Adherents of a liberal ideology believe that politics should seek to create the maximum degree of liberty for all people, including free speech, the right of association, and other basic political rights. This goal requires a state with a low degree of autonomy, so that it can be easily controlled or checked by the public should it begin encroaching on individual rights. For liberals, the lower the ability of the state to intervene in the public's affairs, the greater the scope and promise of human activty and prospertiy. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The legtimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are inurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my procket nor breaks my leg.

Ideology

Liberalism: Favors a limited state role in society and economic activity; emphasizes a high degree of personal freedom over social equality.

Corresponding Political Attitude in North America: Conservative

Liberalism as a Political Attitude:

Liberals, like radicals believe that there is much that can be changed for the better in the current political, social, and economic institutions, and liberals, too, support widespread change. However, instead of revolutionary transformation, Liberals favor revolutionary transformation. In the liberal view, progressive change can happen through changes within the system; it does not require the overthrow of the system itself.

In international relations, a Neoliberal would believe all those things TAI mentioned. Classical liberals are mostly concerned with "natural rights". "Liberals" are different from "liberals". One can be politically conservative and "Liberal" when it comes to international relations. Many of our politicians are.

Clarification, please: The above sounds more like US Libertarianism and (if I understand it right, which is not guaranteed) UK Liberalism.

In the US, "liberalism" tends to tolerate bigger government while demanding more equality, on the philosophical grounds that equality is integral to freedom and individual liberties. US liberalism posits a slightly more regulated market, though still much more free than leftist philosophies. Also, as far as I know, there is nothing in US politics, such as a party, that would capitalize "liberalism."

Maybe I'm wrong about that?

Nooooo. Liberalism in intl relations is something different. Go look it up yourself, I'm done, right after...


Whereas you have yet to show any knowledge of intl relations theory. At least I'm trying, right?

Yes, I have subscribed to the realist theory, but I don't think that's really so bad. I picked it not because I felt I had to, but because it made sense to me.

From my textbook itself:

Liberalism as an ideology (rather than a political attitude) places a high priority on individual political and economic freedom. Adherents of a liberal ideology believe that politics should seek to create the maximum degree of liberty for all people, including free speech, the right of association, and other basic political rights. This goal requires a state with a low degree of autonomy, so that it can be easily controlled or checked by the public should it begin encroaching on individual rights. For liberals, the lower the ability of the state to intervene in the public's affairs, the greater the scope and promise of human activty and prospertiy. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The legtimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are inurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my procket nor breaks my leg.

Ideology

Liberalism: Favors a limited state role in society and economic activity; emphasizes a high degree of personal freedom over social equality.

Corresponding Political Attitude in North America: Conservative


More or less, however two coveats. Classical liberals are not usually concerned with economics, that tends to be more Neoliberals. I would also object to saying that "Conservative" is the corresponding political attitude in North America. Its safe to say that most people in the US is probably an IR "Liberal", regardless of their domestic politics.

EDIT: US libs, for example usually are very "Liberal", especially a "Classical Liberal" in International relations, because they believe more in using "soft power", diplomacy, creating intergovernmental organizations, having established laws and mores on the global stage, and using the state's power to defend the human rights of others.

A big "L" liberal is someone who subscribes to the Liberal school of IR. It has nothing to do with domestic political parties. Almost every politician in the US is a "Liberal". You can tell by how much they use human rights as a justification for their actions (whether they mean it or not is totally different).

A little "l" liberal is what the US usually is refering to when they mention liberal. Progressive social policies, government intervention in the market, etc.

A "neoliberal" is an actual IR school of thought.

The wiki page VC linked earlier isnt actually an awful way to learn real quick the basics about Neolibs.
Okay,thanks, but that doesn't really settle my questions. "Neoconservative" is also an established school of thought. That really doesn't have anything to do with the origin of the word. Also, VC's Wiki is way too shallow an overview. It's not the first time I've read that page. As GnI pointed out, very few people adhere to just one of those ideas as their whole and entire "school of thought" on international relations. US pols may predominantly take a Liberal approach, but I know of no US politician who is all one thing or all another on any of those philosophies. Even the "arch-realist", Henry Kissinger himself, has argued on occasion that the pragmatic interests of the US would be better served by pursuing policies that would be opposed to that wiki page's description of Realism. Clearly that handy-dandy pocket guide is not really useful. Or rather, it's useful the way a color chart is useful. You can figure out the components of a real argument from it, like a color wheel helps you figure out the components of a real color. But neither is useful for making or supporting an argument or picture that is real.

From my textbook itself:

Liberalism as an ideology (rather than a political attitude) places a high priority on individual political and economic freedom. Adherents of a liberal ideology believe that politics should seek to create the maximum degree of liberty for all people, including free speech, the right of association, and other basic political rights. This goal requires a state with a low degree of autonomy, so that it can be easily controlled or checked by the public should it begin encroaching on individual rights. For liberals, the lower the ability of the state to intervene in the public's affairs, the greater the scope and promise of human activty and prospertiy. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The legtimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are inurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my procket nor breaks my leg.

Ideology

Liberalism: Favors a limited state role in society and economic activity; emphasizes a high degree of personal freedom over social equality.

Corresponding Political Attitude in North America: Conservative

Liberalism as a Political Attitude:

Liberals, like radicals believe that there is much that can be changed for the better in the current political, social, and economic institutions, and liberals, too, support widespread change. However, instead of revolutionary transformation, Liberals favor revolutionary transformation. In the liberal view, progressive change can happen through changes within the system; it does not require the overthrow of the system itself.
Okay, that makes more sense to me now. I'm oriented again. Thanks.

Okay,thanks, but that doesn't really settle my questions. "Neoconservative" is also an established school of thought. That really doesn't have anything to do with the origin of the word.

"Neoliberals" started using that term to differentiate themselves from "Classical liberals" in the 70s. I dont think it had anything to do with conservatives using it.


Also, VC's Wiki is way too shallow an overview. It's not the first time I've read that page. As GnI pointed out, very few people adhere to just one of those ideas as their whole and entire "school of thought" on international relations. US pols may predominantly take a Liberal approach, but I know of no US politician who is all one thing or all another on any of those philosophies. Even the "arch-realist", Henry Kissinger himself, has argued on occasion that the pragmatic interests of the US would be better served by pursuing policies that would be opposed to that wiki page's description of Realism. Clearly that handy-dandy pocket guide is not really useful. Or rather, it's useful the way a color chart is useful. You can figure out the components of a real argument from it, like a color wheel helps you figure out the components of a real argument or position. But neither is useful for making or supporting an argument or picture that is real.

True. Very few subscribes to just one school of international relations though, because they are too narrow. Most people take bits and peices from different theories as they apply, the world is way to complex for just one theory to apply all the time.

More or less, however two coveats. Classical liberals are not usually concerned with economics, that tends to be more Neoliberals. I would also object to saying that "Conservative" is the corresponding political attitude in North America. Its safe to say that most people in the US is probably an IR "Liberal", regardless of their domestic politics.
Classical Liberals are indeed concerned with economics, as they tend to be the biggest supporters of limited government, lower taxes and less government capacity. 'Conservatives' in North America, in this sense, are Liberals, while liberals in North America, in this sense, are more of social-democrats.
Clarification, please: The above sounds more like US Libertarianism and (if I understand it right, which is not guaranteed) UK Liberalism.

In the US, "liberalism" tends to tolerate bigger government while demanding more equality, on the philosophical grounds that equality is integral to freedom and individual liberties. US liberalism posits a slightly more regulated market, though still much more free than leftist philosophies. Also, as far as I know, there is nothing in US politics, such as a party, that would capitalize "liberalism."

Maybe I'm wrong about that?
Well the U.S. is a liberal country in terms of political economy and favoring freedom over equality. It is not, what people in North America are now calling themselves "Socially liberal", which is instead what is called social-democrat in Europe.

Again, from my book:

Liberalism:

Role of the state in the economy: Little; minimal welfare state

Role of the market: Paramount

State capacity and autonomy: Low

Importance of equality: Low

How is policy made?: Pluralism

Possible flaws: Inequality, monopolies

Examples: America, UK, Australia, Canada

Classical Liberals are indeed concerned with economics, as they tend to be the biggest supporters of limited government, lower taxes and less government capacity. 'Conservatives' in North America, in this sense, are Liberals, while liberals in North America, in this sense, are more of social-democrats.

Youre right, Im getting all fucking turned around with all this "Liberals" and "liberals" and the difference and shit.

I told you Im not an IR scholar:p

Youre right, Im getting all fucking turned around with all this "Liberals" and "liberals" and the difference and shit.

I told you Im not an IR scholar:p
No problem. You just owe me a beer if we ever cross paths travelling through Europe. Deal? :p

Be wise, if you take this deal. . . I never forget about a free beer :D

No problem. You just owe me a beer if we ever cross paths travelling through Europe. Deal? :p

Be wise, if you take this deal. . . I never forget about a free beer :D

Oh, we're getting plastered if that ever happens.