It's not easy, running a gulag

[HoreTore]

HoreTore, the Convention on Human Rights from the OEA was not ratified by the US, so the US cannot be internationally compelled to oblige. You're also not making an arguement just posting some random articles without relating them to the subject at hand.

I really did think this was obvious, but...

The UN universal declaration of human rights is just that - universal. It applies to every state and person. And this is the US view:

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/hr/

It was made by all the members of the UN, and applies to every member. Also, the US worked hard on it, so it is pretty obvious that it should be applied. On to the rights then:

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

- The most obvious one. OK, you may not call what happens at Guantanamo torture, but can you honestly say that rubbing alleged menstruation blood in a persons face is not degrading treatment?

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

- A bit questionable, as the prisoners are not US citizens.

Article 9.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

- Forget Habeus Corpus, it clearly states in article 10 that everyone should know the charge against them. How many in Guantanamo have been given a clear criminal charge? Also I'm quite skeptical at how fair and impartial the military tribunes are...

Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

- Can anyone say they have good access to lawyers at Guantanamo? And I'd say that they're treated like they're guilty, and as they haven't been tried in a court, that is a violation of the their rights.

So, happy now? Or should I spoonfeed you more?

[Pindar]

I really did think this was obvious, but...

The UN universal declaration of human rights is just that - universal. It applies to every state and person. And this is the US view:

It was made by all the members of the UN, and applies to every member. Also, the US worked hard on it, so it is pretty obvious that it should be applied.

Hello HoreTore,

Your post is confused on several points. The U.N. does not have extra-territorial authority. This means what is ratified within the U.N. does not have the force of law. For example, if the U.N. ratified a resolution dissolving Norway as a country, Norway does not thereby cease to exist as a nation. Any legal overlay one may want to apply to the U.N. exists as a treaty. Under U.S. law treaties require ratification. There are two points here: one, I don't believe the U.S. has ever ratified the U.N.'s specific declaration of human rights. Two, the ratifying authority always trumps what it ratifies. What this second point means is whatever has force to bind a thing, can also loose that thing. This is why a nation may ratify a treaty and then later reject, or modify the same. This is important for your case as the U.S. Congress passed the Military Commissons Act (MCA) in 2006 (I've previously referred to this in the thread). If you wish to make a human rights legal argument contra the U.S. you need to look into the confines of U.S. law, not the U.N.

Note: several of your citations from the Declaration on Human Rights speak to criminality. That is a civil designation and does not apply to combatants in Guantanamo regardless.

[HoreTore]

Hello HoreTore,

Your post is confused on several points. The U.N. does not have extra-territorial authority. This means what is ratified within the U.N. does not have the force of law. For example, if the U.N. ratified a resolution dissolving Norway as a country, Norway does not thereby cease to exist as a nation. Any legal overlay one may want to apply to the U.N. exists as a treaty. Under U.S. law treaties require ratification. There are two points here: one, I don't believe the U.S. has ever ratified the U.N.'s specific declaration of human rights. Two, the ratifying authority always trumps what it ratifies. What this second point means is whatever has force to bind a thing, can also loose that thing. This is why a nation may ratify a treaty and then later reject, or modify the same. This is important for your case as the U.S. Congress passed the Military Commissons Act (MCA) in 2006 (I've previously referred to this in the thread). If you wish to make a human rights legal argument contra the U.S. you need to look into the confines of U.S. law, not the U.N.

Note: several of your citations from the Declaration on Human Rights speak to criminality. That is a civil designation and does not apply to combatants in Guantanamo regardless.

No country in the world has ever ratified the UN declaration on human rights, as it doesn't need that. It is universal, and not only applies to every single state in the world, it also, and even more so, applies to EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET. You may argue that US law says otherwise, however, those in gitmo will still have the protection of the human rights. It's quite simply untouchable. It cannot be altered, it cannot be broken. Not in any case whatsoever.

It also have an authority in the human rights court(in haag or geneve?), but you're right there, that one requires ratification, and I believe the US has withdrawn from that. However, I wouldn't see that a sign that you're "off the hook", I would see that as a sign to grap a point stick and storm the white house to prevent massive crimes against humanity.

Also, you seem to only argue on the legal issue, and seem quite happy that your country is stomping on one of the most fundamental things in our world to prevent another Hitler? It doesn't bother you the slightest that you are breaking the human rights, if you twist it so that it does not apply to you? I wonder how you sleep at night. BTW, I see no reason at all why you should be upset when Al Qaida is chopping off heads, chrashing planes and cutting off limbs. You're happy that you are doing it yourself, so you should be happy when others do it to you.

What would you say if the Taliban won the war and made a camp like gitmo?

As for the criminal stuff, there is no hint at all that those rights are limited to criminal charges, they are applied to every field and situation. For example, when it states that noone is to be detained without being informed of his charges, that applies to guantanamo bay as well as your average joe robbing a gas station.

[Soulforged]

No country in the world has ever ratified the UN declaration on human rights, as it doesn't need that.

However the Declaration (when in my post I talked about the Convention mind you) has no legal weight as to the international process of law, is just that a declaration of a purpose. So for the question: Are you making a legal arguement? The asnwer is no, and if you insist on yes (when there's no need for that), then you've to forget about the Declaration, every arguement founded upon that document is legally vacous.

[Pindar]

No country in the world has ever ratified the UN declaration on human rights, as it doesn't need that. It is universal, and not only applies to every single state in the world, it also, and even more so, applies to EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET.

Soulforged has addressed this, but if you are attempting a legal argument to justify a human rights claim then the above is incoherent. If you're not attempting a legal argument for any human rights claim then the U.N. is irrelevant.

You may argue that US law says otherwise, however, those in gitmo will still have the protection of the human rights. It's quite simply untouchable. It cannot be altered, it cannot be broken. Not in any case whatsoever.

I think you are confused. I'll explain. If someone claims a human right, the claim alone is not enough. As mentioned before: if I claim a human right to disco, my claim carries no weight alone. If the U.N. declares I have a right to disco this also is insufficient for the reasons I explained in the previous post. So, if you wish to argue any human rights position and someone like me challenges or asked the wherefore of the claim, you need to justify that claim over and above simply saying it's universal or just is or some such.

Also, you seem to only argue on the legal issue, and seem quite happy that your country is stomping on one of the most fundamental things in our world to prevent another Hitler? It doesn't bother you the slightest that you are breaking the human rights, if you twist it so that it does not apply to you? I wonder how you sleep at night. BTW, I see no reason at all why you should be upset when Al Qaida is chopping off heads, chrashing planes and cutting off limbs. You're happy that you are doing it yourself, so you should be happy when others do it to you.

I think your passion is running away with you some.

What would you say if the Taliban won the war and made a camp like gitmo?

I would say the inmates would be in a far better situation than say what Daniel Pearl faced.

As for the criminal stuff, there is no hint at all that those rights are limited to criminal charges, they are applied to every field and situation. For example, when it states that noone is to be detained without being informed of his charges, that applies to guantanamo bay as well as your average joe robbing a gas station.

Actually the very notion of a charge implies criminality. The word charge implies a breach of some sort. A captured combatant isn't charged from the capture alone.

[ajaxfetish]

No country in the world has ever ratified the UN declaration on human rights, as it doesn't need that. It is universal, and not only applies to every single state in the world, it also, and even more so, applies to EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET. You may argue that US law says otherwise, however, those in gitmo will still have the protection of the human rights. It's quite simply untouchable. It cannot be altered, it cannot be broken. Not in any case whatsoever.

That is a very, very strong claim. Are you willing to stand behind it? Every single state, every single human being, untouchable, unalterable, period. Where does this declaration get such immense weight behind it that it can never be changed by any body ever, including the body that penned it? Is it a perfect document? What is its claim to universal authority through not only space, but also time? This sounds like the kind of faith placed in religious convictions, not those of secular humanism and law.

Also, you seem to only argue on the legal issue,

That's because he is a lawyer. He asked you specifically if you were making a legal argument to determine whether he should argue with you on legal grounds. You refused to answer the question but continued to argue in a legal fashion, so he responded in kind. If you change your argument from a legal one to something else, such as DC's moral argument, then you may be able to make some headway, but arguing Law with Pindar is like arguing astrophysics with Hawking. You're going to have a hard time coming out on top.

Ajax

[Pindar]

That's because he is a lawyer. He asked you specifically if you were making a legal argument to determine whether he should argue with you on legal grounds. You refused to answer the question but continued to argue in a legal fashion, so he responded in kind.

Quite so.

[Don Corleone]

I think HoreTore is right, a human right should just be 'declared'. I would like to officially go on record as declaring my universal human right to replace our current office administrator with Liv Tyler.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I guess the self-evident truth that all men are endowed with certain unalienable rights is lost on teh Americans.


@Pindar and Soulforged. You two are responding with legal arguments to HoreTore. Or dare I say, legalistic. He initially did present his case as a legal argument, while failing to come up with a legal argument. But he changed to the sphere of legal philosophy in his last post. If you two tireless legal positivists are Hart, he is now Dworkin, if I remember them right.
HT's latest position can not be dismissed anymore by your repeating that the UDoHR carries no direct legal status. That would suffice in a court of law, but he is now arguing from a natural law position that no legal position that goes against the UDoHR carries, or rather, should carry, legal status.
I for one wouldn't mind hearing a legal philosophical rebuttal from either of you two (former) law students that says he's wrong in this.
It has no direct bearing on the current topic. Gitmo is tiresome and I don't feel like getting into it.

[HoreTore]

Well, I didn't get the lawyer-thingy, I'm not making a legal argument, I couldn't care less about that. You are not technically bound to follow it, but if you intend to make the world livable, you are bound to follow it. And isn't that what the bush administration is claiming to do? Civilized countries have chosen to put the human rights court above their own laws, and I hope the US will follow our example. The HR were created to avoid the atrocities of ww2 to happen again. For that to happen, it will first need recognition, which it has. Second, it will need authority, which it only has in a few places in the world.

And no, a charge doesn't have to mean criminal charge. Take a look at the cases in the human rights court, and you'll see that the definitions of that document are extremely broad catch-all phrases. Also, listen to what human rights organizations are saying about guantanamo. Not a single one of them claim that the prisoners aren't protected by the human rights, or that their rights are not broken.

The HR were created by basically the entire world. It's not like a few people sat down and decided something. And it's special in the case of the US, since they figured heavily in the making of them. If what you claim is correct, then the document is basically completely worthless. Why then do we have a human rights court, and trials where states are punished and they follow the verdict to the letter? So I'll ask you, do you think the document is a waste of paperwork, or is it a good foundation for a civilized society?

As for Ajaxfetish' comment, I fully stand by that claim, except that a new one can replace it, though that should happen in the same context that it was created.