Comments on: Independence Day

By: Fabio Albertin

Fabio Albertin — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 02:04:45 +0000

Dr. H: Good to see that we agree on the definitions. IMO, however, Congress should now move to redefine the SCOTUS’ jurisdiction as they clearly have ruled contrary to established law in this case. I am of the originalist persuasion and see the constitution as law and not as a biological organism (just like one of the justices). As such, this case to me is yet another example of activist judges imposing a left-wing extremist opinion on the federal government and by extension on us. If laypersons like myself and educated educators like you (not all professors are educated) can see how the Geneva conventions don’t apply to members of non-state groups, then this fact should be obvious to Supreme Court justices.

By: theory.isthereason » Happy “explosive” Fourth of July!

theory.isthereason » Happy “explosive” Fourth of July! — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 21:28:53 +0000

[…] For the Fourth of July, Paul Stamatiou sent me this video of a guy blowing up his PowerMac G4. While some people wrote something more profound about it (See what makes Americans different), hearing all the firework around my neighborhood just makes me feel like blowing stuff up. Ah… reminds me of my childhood days when I’d take all the gun powder from little pop-pops and collect them in film canisters for bigger explosions. I’m so lucky I haven’t lost a limb! […]

By: admin

admin — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 00:03:12 +0000

Joe: You are absolutely right, and I think that is w. It’s clear that we were only as successful in the Revolutionary War because we were willing to break the rules. Those who did so had to believe that they were fulfilling a higher good. But the same can be said of those who put a jet into the towers.

In fact, the US has targeted civilians in Iraq, so the civilian line isn’t one that seems particularly clear either. And current forces are now mired in a series of illegal abuses of power (prisoner abuse, rape, murder) that are clearly not about following the rules.

But the reality aside, I think the idea of the rule of law is a central American ideal. I don’t think that it would be hard to associate this with some of the rhetoric surrounding independence–i.e., equal protection and avoiding the capriciousness of the royals.

Fabio: Luckily for the prisoners, such debate is now moot. The only opinion that matters here is of the Supreme Court. For all practical purposes, the Geneva Conventions now do apply to our prisoners. A lot of that comes down to how you interpret “international.” Frankly, I agree that a close reading would seem to exclude them, but luckily the SC has decided otherwise, and that is now the law of the land. It will require a congressional act to change that.

By: Fabio Albertin

Fabio Albertin — Mon, 03 Jul 2006 21:40:43 +0000

Your assertions would be on the right path if the Geneva Conventions were applicable in the case at hand.

Despite so many Democrats and other left wing extremists’ assertions, however, they are not. If you read the text of the conventions, you will see that POWs, in order to qualify for protections under articles of the conventions, have to be closely affiliated with a state power. In the case of those arrested in the theaters of war in the middle east, this does not apply. Neither the Taliban, nor Al Qaeda or any other group of terrorists (or whatever name you would like to give them) have ever represented a state.

As for treating them nicely, we are. Despite the fact that the USA is not an islamic nation (yet), prisoners are afforded all the privileges their “religion” demands. Being the corrupt individuals they are, they would naturally always complain about their conditions.

As far as I’m concerned no law we are obliged to recognize by our constitution has been broken and if the prisoners don’t like their condition they should have maybe not participated in their respective conflicts.

By: joe

joe — Mon, 03 Jul 2006 15:57:32 +0000

Something that has been bugging me about the military argument is the revolutionary war angle. I’m no military historian but I believe part of the argument as to why we won the revolutionary war was due to guerilla warfare tactics instead of the shoot-in-lines BS that the British employed. Wasn’t that breaking the rules? Couldn’t we (effectively) replace the colonial soldiers with terrorists and replace the guy responding to Matthews above with a British officer?

I’m not sure what distinguishes the two (maybe it’s that we try, or at least used to try, not to kill civilians).

By: American Literature » Blog Archive » Declaration of Independence

American Literature » Blog Archive » Declaration of Independence — Mon, 03 Jul 2006 10:45:57 +0000

[…] Alex Halavais seems to be expressing a similar view in this post on his blog, where he argues that respect for the law and the ideals behind it are important for the American project. He also links to an excellent earlier post on plagiarism which every would-be cheat should read (and steal). […]