Palin on Justice

[beamjockey]

I heard Governor Palin's speech at the Republican National Convention last night.

At one point, she listed contrasts between Senator McCain and "our opponent."

Victory in Iraq is finally in sight ... he wants to forfeit.

Terrorist states are seeking nuclear weapons without delay ... he wants to meet them without preconditions.

And then she said:

Al-Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... he's worried that someone won't read them their rights.

This was met with cheers from the assembled Republicans.

I was disturbed.

Is Gov. Palin opposed to reading criminals their rights? Is McCain?

Comments

[kevinnickerson.livejournal.com]

I have read the decision and dissents, but it was back when they were issued so I'm probably foggy. One thing, Guantanamo is not a war zone. IIRC, the Court has distinguished between what treatment is appropriate in the war zone vs. many years later (i.e. standards of evidence in the tribunals).

[billroper]

Sure. And part of the discussion (as I recall; it's been a while since I read those PDFs too) revolves around the sort of standards that you can expect our troops who are engaged in combat to follow as opposed to the -- I would expect -- higher standards that would (in my opinion) be appropriate for our police to follow.

It would be easier if the folks we were fighting were following any of the rules for combatants that the Geneva Convention sets out. By and large, they don't; thus, the problem with trying to apply the Geneva Convention rules to them. (Yes, the Supreme Court said that we should, but I'm thinking the logic there was a bit fuzzy. Doesn't mean it's not the law, just that I believe that the law can sometimes be an ass.)

[kevinnickerson.livejournal.com]

Sorry Bill, but I think you've made a fundamental error. The decisions were with how to run the Tribunals. Not on how to act in the war zone. The tribunals are being held in a safe area, years after the initial 'arrest'. No one, so far as I've heard, has said that the combat troops on the ground have to read anyone their rights.

So, the decisions revolve not around the standards we expect our troops to follow, but around the standards we expect the courts to adhere to. I'll cut a lot of slack for the people in a war zone. I, and the SCOTUS, won't cut much slack for a judge and lawyers in a court room.

As to the Geneva Conventions, I'd refer you to John McCain's rather forceful reply to G.W. Bush on the subject. Well, I would if I could find a quote. It was along the lines of "We don't do it so that our people aren't subjected to it".

[billroper]

I seem to recall something different from the dissents. And one of the points that you raised a moment ago was on "standards of evidence" where that evidence needs to be collected in a war zone by our combat troops, doesn't it?

Noting that I'm going to end up voting for McCain, I'll just say this -- let me know when the terrorists in Iraq stop subjecting our people to it, would you? This is not meant to say that I believe that "anything goes", but that I do believe that it is inappropriate to give people who are violating an agreement all of the protections that they would receive if they were complying with the agreement.

Otherwise, what's the incentive for complying with it in the first place?

So how far down the slope do we become what we fight against?

[techgrrl.livejournal.com]

There are two separate issues in this thread:

With respect to courts and evidence:
| And one of the points that you raised a moment ago was on
| "standards of evidence" where that evidence needs to be collected
| in a war zone by our combat troops, doesn't it?

Bill, as far as I know, nobody is claiming that evidence collected by soldiers on the battlefield has to meet civilian standards of evidence collection. The court case makes clear though, that the government merely saying something is true is not sufficient to hold someone for six years without trial or lawyers. The government has to either follow the standard for military tribunals or ask congress to pass a law. Palin comparing this to miranda rights is intellectually dishonest.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/29/AR2006062900928.html

As for the torture issue, you do not torture people for many reasons, but reciprocity is not really among them. You do not torture because it is ineffective, you do not torture because it is wrong, you do not torture because it does not really work. If others torture your troops, responding in kind does not help. We do not give people the protections of the Geneva convention because we expect them to behave by it, we do it because it is good policy to not torture. McCain was in favor of not torturing people as recently as 18 months ago.

Re: So how far down the slope do we become what we fight against?

[mbumby.livejournal.com]

I'm not actually disagreeing with anything you said above, but I have one quibble. You say but reciprocity is not really among them.

I have to believe there is some benefit to "the moral high ground" -- when it is legitimate.

Agreed -- we shouldn't not-torture to keep people from torturing us, as that MIGHT not work,
But (1) if we do torture, doesn't that make it more likely that torture will be used against us in the future? and (2) I don't know how to phrase this, but nowadays when I hear the "we're the good guys, so by definition we can do no wrong, so how could you _think_ of ..." spiel, I just hope that people think I'm a Canadian. Basically, by applying torture, I think we've thrown away out "bitchin' rights" for the future.

[kevinnickerson.livejournal.com]

Well, no. The majority of the evidence was not collected in the war zone by our combat troops. It's been collected via interrogations, and intelligence gathering. Some portion was collected in the war zone. That's covered by testimony of the person(s) who made the 'arrest' (I don't know the appropriate word, 'arrest' seems best). Like any court case their testimony should be entered into the record and judged as to it's validity. That judgment will certainly take into account the fact that it was a war zone.

On the second part, even if I agreed with your "inappropriate..." comment, we first need to correctly determine if the people being tried are some of the "people who are violating...". The simple fact is that we have picked up some number of innocent people in the sweep. I'm ok with that. As observed, they were picked up in combat conditions and that's rough. Once they're sitting in a court, then we've got to proceed in a way that allows us to properly separate the guilty from the innocent. That separation of guilty from the innocent is what the DTA and tribunals is all about.

But I don't agree with your second paragraph. There are many levels of conflict, and one is PR and aimed at those leaning against us, but not completely so. i.e. the people being recruited by the terrorists. By treating the worst with a certain degree of standards we defuse the arguments that we're satan incarnate.

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

In fact, the people we're fighting are somewhat organized groups of common criminals. They operate embedded in the general population. The work of finding them and getting them locked up is much more like policing than like fighting a war. Sending soldiers into city neighborhoods to attack and defeat the 18 people that associate with terrorism (15 of them rather vaguely) is pretty much guaranteed to have a bad outcome (high civilian casualties; and next week that neighborhood has 38 people associated with terrorism living in it).

Right

[techgrrl.livejournal.com]

This is not a war where organized armies take to the field of battle and fight, this is a criminal action, and you need police investigation, good intelligence work and so forth. Calling it a war on terror is rhetoric, and misses the point.