h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Getting back to the initial question here, I can't seem to find it in the backlog or the links but what exactly is the legal recourse for someone in a US military base in a foreign country? Especially considering the unique location Guantanamo has. Would it fall under international law, diplomatic courtesy, US law, or the law of the *host* country?

member: I have never used the Yikes button before, but that post [#16] was so offensively patronising, I was tempted to break the habit. Please try and be a bit more civil.
apparition (if you see this): please don't fan the flames.



cl zoomer:
I think so far, the USA has been arguing "none of the above" - it's neither part of Cuba, nor in any American state, and international consists mainly of standards for local law. Eventually, they want to hold "trials" which are based on internal military tribunals rather than any recognised legal system, but they've been putting off even doing that so far - maybe they haven't worked out how to stop them looking corrupt...

That said, the country as a whole, and specifically those authorising the process, could probably be taken to an international court - the International Court of Justice [http://212.153.43.18/icjwww/icj002.htm], or the Inter-American Court of Human Rights [http://heiwww.unige.ch/humanrts/iachr/iachr.html] perhaps. I don't know anything about this really, but much though they'd like to, the USA couldn't really ignore *the whole of the rest of the world*.

And as for army size, don't forget that the USA is only one of 5 states to officially have nuclear capability. $deity help us if it comes to that, but it's a potential evener of odds...

Apparition: I say 8 hour drive. You say 11 hours bus, or 16 hours train. So what, we're *agreeing*? This seems to imply:

1. I was right about the thing you said I had no idea about.
2. You don't have a car or can't or won't use one.

Is there a POINT to your observation, and if so, was your mommy too dumb to make it on her own so she had to get you to do it for her again?

And I'll be civil to people who deserve it, Increase.

"much though they'd like to, the USA couldn't really ignore *the whole of the rest of the world*."

The question "why not?" stands.

What exactly are we going to do, realistically? First of all, ANYTHING the rest of the world chooses to do, the French will disagree with and refuse to cooperate. Second, the "declared" nuclear powers are the US, Russia, the UK, France and China. India, Pakistan and Israel are "de facto" nuclear powers, for a total of eight. This is largely irrelevant, however, as there's no realistic prospect of any of them initiating a nuclear strike on a US target pre-emptively.

Bear in mind that so far, there's ONE country with a record of using nuclear weapons on other countries, and ONE country with a recent record of unprovoked pre-emptive strikes on countries that pose absolutely no realistic threat to them or their citizens.

Personally, I think the rest of the world had better hope that Kerry wins the election (and the court cases...) this year, because if Bush gets in again there's no telling what he'll do, because nobody and nothing will be able to stop him.

Seriously - if the US got bored of the controversy and instead just went round Camp Delta tomorrow and executed every single remaining inmate with a single bullet to the head, does anyone honestly think there would be ANY lasting repercussions that the average American would give a s**t about? Oh sure, there'd be diplomatic protests, withdrawn ambassadors, Libya would stop buying Ben&Jerry's and there might even be a couple of bombs laid in shopping malls or something. But that would just give the US the excuse to go and bomb the crap out of Syria, so the deaths of a couple of dozen obese shoppers in Porkbelly Arizona would be "avenged" by twenty thousand or so Arab civilians - again. And so it would continue.

The US is not like a bully in a playground. They will not simply back down in the face of international pressure. They have always had a deeply ingrained national sense of paranoia, and that has only been amplified by the events of the last few years. If international pressure meant anything, there would be no Guantamo Bay, there would have been no Iraq war.

If you must have an analogy, and the schoolyard bully one doesn't work, try this:

We're all in a train carriage. We're locked in, on a long journey to who knows where. In the carriage is a nutter - a big, mean looking guy, who smells kind of odd and has a strange look in his one good eye. He's dressed as a cop, but you can tell from the way he talks and behaves that that's just a Halloween outfit. There are real cops in the carriage, but only half a dozen or so, and none of them has a gun as big as this guy's. One of them is even standing behind the psycho, patting him on the shoulder, saying soothing things and trying not to look too embarrassed for sucking up to him. God knows what *that* guy is up to, or where he thinks it'll get him. He seems to think it's possible to have a "special relationship" with the nutter. And now the nutter has started jabbering to himself, and he's already shot and killed two other passengers.

What do you do?

If you're the kind of self-righteous prat who'd walk up to such a person and demand they keep it down, put that cigarette out and stop pointing that gun around the place, good luck to you. I can't wait to see what happens. I hope I'll be able to see your brains hit the window from where I am, over here in the corner keeping quiet and hoping the psycho doesn't ever get round to paying me the kind of attention he's about to start paying you.

The best and only option the international community has in the face of America's current behaviour is to shut the f**k up and hope it all calms down and goes away. No realistic international coalition would have a hope against a United States of America that believed itself to be under direct or even indirect attack.

Remember - over half of the population of the US believe Iraq was attacked in retaliation for 9/11. Over half the people in the US believe that the literally insanely anti-religion Saddam Hussein was right behind Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.

For a parallel, how difficult would it be for Tony Blair to convince the UK population that Ian Paisley was the real power behind the IRA? That's the kind of ideological disconnect we're dealing with here. So if you can convince a majority of your population of something THAT off the wall, imagine how easy it would be to mobilise them against a REAL threat from outside their borders. How scary would THAT be?

IM

So there's no place someone could sue? Ironic given the litigious nature of the US.

Member: the reason why that one guy is standing behind the nutter on the train is that, whilst he may have a small gun of his own, only the nutter has the code to release the safety catch. Which means that effectively their are only 4 declared nuclear states.

Also, the French wouldn't just disagree. They'd surrender. Well-known fact.

The only country that could realistically challenge American hegemony is China. Presumably this is why US foreign policy is being directed to try and "Americanise" China and make the two economies mutually dependent?

Just some confused ramblings to consider.

RF

ps. Could you cut the personal abuse at the beginning of your posts? It's really quite tiresome.

Yes, of course! I do realise now, the tone is a dead giveaway. Hoo/Member/Number, leave it out! This *was* a reasonable discussion, until you decided to get what you no doubt think is funny...

I have no affection for the American Goverment and totally disagree with their activities in Guantanamo, but does anyone here realise what the British are doing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/features/ihavearightto/four_b/casestudy_art09.shtml

What about the Russians:http://www.npwj.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1373

What about the Governments, armies and police of Brazil, Turkey, Indonesia or Nigeria.

make all the noise you want to about the US knock yourselves out, gut all this protesting seems a bit hollow when you dont seem willing to acknowledge that whats happening in Gauntanamo, and much worse human rights abuses, has gone on previously and is still happening in other places.

one love

i concur wholeheartedly

"Member/Number, leave it out!"

There's only one thing I find more contemptible than governments abusing human rights, and that's self-identifying "radicals" who bleat "show me where to protest". It's these rent-an-opinion idiots who give the protests a bad name.

And if you disagree with me Della - you asked a question, I've supplied you with the answer. Do let us know how your protest goes on, please. But until you've actually made one, how about you shut up? Either that, or admit you have no intention of protesting anywhere but right here on h2g2, where it's not an actual effort for you.

this concentration camp violates international law but since the u.s. has not signed up to the criminal court there is no real recourse

member: had you considered the possibility that the request was simply rhetorical, and intended to mean "I intend to protest about this as soon as I am given a reasonable opportunity"?

Not everyone has the means to organise a protest from scratch - it takes time, contacts, potentially money, and certainly a lot of courage. And yet thousands turn up when somebody else organises a protest - are they all weak, easily-led, and to be discounted with one sweeping generalisation? In my opinion, they are not - we cannot fight every fight in life to the extent it deserves, because there is not enough time in the universe; but that doesn't mean that we should concentrate entirely on one, and express no opinion on any others; nor does it mean we should attempt to spread our time in such a way that our actions are somehow "consistent" across every issue.

I call this phenomenon - this need to find a compromise over what we spend our effort on - OMTWA, and long ago wrote A683480 about it. I think it is one of the greatest challenges we face in life, whether we realise it or not.

blicky: you make an important point, there, and we must avoid the risk of being "nimby" about it. (Not In My Back Yard; not my invention, honest )

As a matter of fact, I was aware of that - I remember being disgusted by the RIP Act (which allows interception of communications in the UK) long ago, for instance. I admit, I didn't do *much* to protest, but I guess that's somewhere between inexcusable apathy and inescapable omtwa.

The problem is that the USA likes to present itself as the Land of the Free, as the prototype of Democracy, and the epitome of "Good". And generally, they get away with this - unlike, say, Russia, or China, or "The Democratic Republic of the Congo" - people seem to buy the story. And yet, their activities in Guantanamo Bay are completely the opposite of all these ideals - and they're not just plans, either, but concrete actions that have affected the lives of around 600 human beings for over 2 years.

So while it is only one example among many, there is good reason to hold up Guantanamo as a crucial benchmark and set a precedent of saying "this is unacceptable, and unexcusable".

Im not really trying to have a dig at the people here I was trying to put Guantanamo into some sort of perspective. I dont think that it should be ignored, but I think the general publics opinion is ignored by the PTB because we on the whole appear to have short memories and tunnel vision.

If people are really that interested in the welfare of those in custody they can join a prison vsiting scheme or volunteer to be a custody inspector for their local police authority area. They both are relatively easy and practical ways to help ensure decent standards of care for prisoners.

one love

Well, Della?

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/mar2004/aus-m22.shtml

Specifically: "In New Zealand, demonstrations were held in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch".

Are you going to tell us how the demonstration went? I'm surprised you haven't already, to be honest.

Or are you going to produce some reason why you couldn't make it?

Just curious, you understand...

For information, this question has been answered elsewhere.

F71014?thread=398849&post=5064910#p5064910

Della "tell me where to protest" the Catwoman, did NOT, in fact, go to the anniversary protest in her home town, or anywhere else.

I now consider my point to have been made and this particular detail closed and won't bring it up again.