Just so you know, I'm studying international law (fourth year at university), and I'm getting a first-rate education from leading US, Canadian, UK and other academics. I know the international standards.Originally Posted by Sasquatch
Systematic abuses of detainees in camps in Iraq are a leading example; in spite of frequent claims that torture and abuse were ordered by superior officers, it's only ever the grunts who get held accountable. The continued detention of suspects at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba is the most powerful example, and blatantly illegal by the standards of any other nation, as well as international law. No other civilised state ever considers it's OK to capture people in their own country, then lock them up indefinitely without access to legal advice, without charge, without trial, without a guarantee of even the most basic of human rights. If anyone did that to an American captive, they'd be bombed to hell for it.
Excuses like "they're unlawful combatants!11!" simply don't work either. I could go into all the international law details, but that's boring.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htmAnd the CIA usually doesn't perform their own interrogations in which, ahem, "torture" may be necessary. That's why we send 'em to places like Egypt, where their laws permit such methods of extracting information.
This is a link to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It's the final word as far as torture is concerned. If you torture someone yourself, or send them to a place where you know they'll be tortured, you're just as guilty. Here is a link to the judgment from the Paramilitary Activities case. Nicaragua took the USA to court, after the CIA had spent a long time assisting anti-government rebels to commit terrorist crimes, including:
the abduction, rape and murder of civilians; the bombing of civilian building; the mining of civilian ships in port.
The US's response was interesting:
"Noo, but they're communists! We're allowed to do whatever we want so long as it kills communists! It's self-defence, because communists are evil and un-American!"
"What? We're not going to take part in any 'trial'! America is beyond reproach!"
"Hey, the USA wasn't a part of that trial! That means it was a travesty of justice and we refuse to acknowledge its findings!"
It was quite disgusting to read that such things had been said by a country that's always been such a steadfast supporter of freedom and justice for all.
This was widely reported in the international press; it wasn't that the churches prevented anyone entering, but some high-ranking church members said that Kerry's supporters shouldn't receive services. This isn't a particularly big deal, so far as I'm concerned.And the Catholic Church--or any churches, rather--may have spoken out against stances that Kerry took (i.e. pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, Socialism, etc.), but I would doubt that they specifically said "don't let Democrats in".
Were the IRA terrorists, or freedom fighters? They wanted their land to be free of British rule. They bombed innocents as part of their campaign. They and their supporters say they're freedom fighters; everyone else says they're terrorists.Again, there is quite a difference between a terrorist and a "freedom fighter". A person who is fighting against us is not referred to as a "terrorist" unless they use terrorism to do so. Are you saying that 11 September was the act of "freedom fighters"? Whereas "freedom fighters", who I would have at least some respect for, try to seperate themselves from the civilian population, to minimize civilian casualties on both sides, terrorists try to blend in with the civilian population for protection, and target the opposing civilian population. There's more of a difference than just the weapons used.
Nelson Mandela and the ANC were called "terrorists" by South Africa's apartheid-era government. I doubt any would do so today.
No, the line between 'freedom fighter' and 'terrorist' is very blurred. It's almost completely a subjective matter, dependent upon one's own perspective, morals and political motives.
A fictional character once said that "if you win, you're a general. If you lose, you're a terrorist". This is precisely why weaker, corrupt nations can get labelled "terrorist states" while superpowers can get away with prettymuch anything.
Kamikaze attacks let pilots use their aircraft as a final weapon, when they were damaged beyond use or out of ammunition. Japan's culture at that time was quite spiritual; there was a strong desire among soldiers to die honourably in combat. I don't know all the details, but it wasn't simply a case of "omg i r evil! I kill u all!"lionx: If the Japanese had bombs and torpedos (and a combination of the two) in WWII, why did they need Kamikaze attacks? And no, terrorists didn't have WMDs, not at that point.
Personally, I find the Kamikaze concept repulsive, but that's just my perspective.
