|
Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| How will Abe be as a Prime minister, please comment |
| He will be good |
|
10% |
[ 2 ] |
| He will be bad |
|
73% |
[ 14 ] |
| He will be good and bad |
|
15% |
[ 3 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 19 |
|
| Author |
Message |
shuize
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 1270
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:55 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Do Prime Ministers even have that much authority? Isn't it more a question of whether this LDP ruling coalition will be any different from past LDP ruling coalitions?
My uninformed guess is that Japan will putter along as usual which, compared to most places, is actually pretty comfortable. In my opinion, Abe is certainly not anyone to get worked up about. But that won't keep lots of people from doing so, I'm sure.
Last edited by shuize on Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:21 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
shuize
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 1270
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Deleted |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NorthofAmerica
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 187
Location: Recovering Expat
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| shuize wrote: |
Tell me, what do the Geneva Conventions say about individuals who do not follow an organized command structure, do not wear uniforms of an organized fighting force and do not afford their prisoners reciprocal treatment under the Conventions? Are such idividuals even classified as prisoners of war under the Conventions?
|
Yes, and even when they are considered as civilians partaking in terrorist acts they are protected (or at least supposed to be) from torture, being deported from the occupied territory, and being tried and prosecuted without due process.
| shuize wrote: |
Assuming they are entitled to classification as prisoners of war (which I believe is far from certain -- think back to what happend to soldiers captured fighting out of uniform in past wars), when do the Conventions require release? Is it not at the "end of hostilities?"
Now, given that Al Queda has repeatedly vowed "forever war" with the U.S., I think a good case can be made under the Conventions that it is not required to release any of them.
Putting that aside for the moment, as noted above, the United States has released hundreds only to recapture some of the same individuals fighting against it again -- so what would you have the United States do with those individuals? Are there historic examples of a country affording enemy soldiers captured on the battlefield a criminal trial? |
For starters, using the behaviour of Al Quaeda as the standard for the United States' moral, legal, and ethical obligations in this war is obviously dangerous and stupid. This is not about who can justify the most heinous behaviour and a democratic state (even a dubious one) must be expected to maintain a certain level of conduct regardless of the actions of non-state actors. It sounds unfair but that's because it is. Then again, death from above is not so fair either.
The American "War on Terror" is just as open ended as any jihad, think of the "War on Drugs" (can't we just admit drugs won already?). If the US agreed to consider these people POWs and accord them the rights of POWs then perhaps you could hold them indefinitely and argue about the war not being over. It's that the US ISN'T treating them as POWs and respecting those rights OR charging them with crimes and giving them the rights of a civilian. The US is just arbitrarily locking people up, denying ANYONE access to whatever evidence or justification they have, and NOT charging them or giving them a legal process to be further detained or freed. Obviously things are different on a battlefield and I am not here to say that EVERY person the US has hidden away is innocent. Only, that there NEEDS to be a legal framework (Geneva or otherwise) that respects human dignity and provides a process for them to be justifiably detained or let go. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shuize
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 1270
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NorthofAmerica wrote: |
| Yes, and even when they are considered as civilians partaking in terrorist acts they are protected (or at least supposed to be) from torture, being deported from the occupied territory, and being tried and prosecuted without due process. |
My understading is that civilians are protected under the Geneva Conventions but those who do not follow the minimum requirements I noted above are not. See for example the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War Article 3 and Article 4 which specifically defines those individuals who are entitled to prisoner of war status: command by an individual responsible for his subordinates, recognizable military uniform, carrying arms openly, following the laws and customs of war.
| Quote: |
| For starters, using the behaviour of Al Quaeda as the standard for the United States' moral, legal, and ethical obligations in this war is obviously dangerous and stupid. |
If we were really using the standards of Al Queda to guide us, we'd be sawing off their heads. That, of course, is not happening.
| Quote: |
| The American "War on Terror" is just as open ended as any jihad, think of the "War on Drugs" (can't we just admit drugs won already?). If the US agreed to consider these people POWs and accord them the rights of POWs then perhaps you could hold them indefinitely and argue about the war not being over. It's that the US ISN'T treating them as POWs and respecting those rights OR charging them with crimes and giving them the rights of a civilian. |
In my opinion, much of the controversy revolves around the interpretation of Article 5 of the Convention:
| Article 5 wrote: |
| Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal. |
I think many people misunderstand this section of the Convention. It does not mean that everyone who falls into the hands of the United States or its allies is automatically entitled to P.O.W. status. Rather, that when there is a question as to whether the individual meets the requirments in Article 4, they should be afforded such protections granted to legitimate P.O.W.s until a determination can be made.
This, if I recall correctly, was the issue in the recent Supreme Court Hamdi case which determined Congress must set the standard. Congress recently did so (which also outlined what qualifies as a 'competent tribunal' and the degree of procedural protection such individuals are entitled -- though I have not followed up on this).
In short, my understanding is:
There is a procedure in place to determine the status of captured individuals.
Hundreds have been released from detention already. (Although a number of those released have been recaptured fighting against the U.S. again -- which would support the argument that rather than being too harsh, the U.S. is actually being too lenient in its standards for release)
Those classified as prisoners of war may be held until the end of hostilities. (Too bad for them if Al Queda vows to fight forever.)
Those who do not follow the rules outlined under the Geneva Conventions for legitimate P.O.W. status are entitled to very little legal protection. That they get any is a testiment to the civility of the United States.
Edited to correct quotations
Last edited by shuize on Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:50 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luckyloser700
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 308
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, Mr. Abe is still keeping quiet about future Yasukuni visits, but he's taking positive steps in arranging for meetings with leaders of other Asian countries. He also stepped up and reaffirmed an admission by a previous PM of Japan's wartime atrocities last century.
Looking OK so far. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ironopolis
Joined: 01 Apr 2004
Posts: 379
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 2:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| luckyloser700 wrote: |
Well, Mr. Abe is still keeping quiet about future Yasukuni visits, but he's taking positive steps in arranging for meetings with leaders of other Asian countries. He also stepped up and reaffirmed an admission by a previous PM of Japan's wartime atrocities last century.
Looking OK so far. |
I'd agree with that, but it's still very early days. He's fairly astute and is going to play his cards very close to his chest while he gets himself established. I'm not yet convinced that his ultimate aims will be much different to what his previous comments and actions would suggest, but we'll have to wait and see. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Like a Rolling Stone
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 872
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| shuize wrote: |
Do Prime Ministers even have that much authority? Isn't it more a question of whether this LDP ruling coalition will be any different from past LDP ruling coalitions?
My uninformed guess is that Japan will putter along as usual which, compared to most places, is actually pretty comfortable. In my opinion, Abe is certainly not anyone to get worked up about. But that won't keep lots of people from doing so, I'm sure. |
Jeez Louise shuize! That's a good answer!
And look...no smillies!!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NorthofAmerica
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 187
Location: Recovering Expat
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| shuize: We're gonna have to agree to disagree. You wanna give the benefit of the doubt to the captors and an administration currently legislating its own lack of accountability. I don't. We'll see how this plays out over the next few years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wangtesol
Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 280
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here's an interesting article by war historian Gwynne Dyer...
Shinzo Abe and a "Normal" Japan
http://www.gwynnedyer.net/articles/Gwynne%20Dyer%20article_%20%20Abe%20and%20a%20Normal%20Japan.txt
Before reading the article, I didn't know that Abe was the grandson of former Prime Minister and war criminal Kishi.
But then again war criminals are a dime a dozen I guess. Robert McNamara calls himself a war criminal in a movie on DVD called The Fog of War. He also, for the first time, reveals that he was a major military strategist in the fire bombings of Japan - not just a mere statistician. There are figures in the film on some Japanese cities that were fire bombed and % of the city destroyed.
Even if you are out in the countryside, you probably live in one of them that is listed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wangtesol
Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 280
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:04 am Post subject: Dire McNamara |
|
|
Here's an interesting article by war historian Gwynne Dyer...
Shinzo Abe and a "Normal" Japan
http://www.gwynnedyer.net/articles/Gwynne%20Dyer%20article_%20%20Abe%20and%20a%20Normal%20Japan.txt
Before reading the article, I didn't know that Abe was the grandson of former Prime Minister and war criminal Kishi.
But then again war criminals are a dime a dozen I guess. Robert McNamara calls himself a war criminal in a movie new on DVD called The Fog of War. He also, for the first time, reveals that he was a major military strategist in the fire bombings of Japan - not just a mere statistician. There are figures in the film on some Japanese cities that were fire bombed and % of the city destroyed.
Even if you are out in the countryside, you probably live in one of them that is listed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shuize
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 1270
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 12:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NorthofAmerica wrote: |
| shuize: We're gonna have to agree to disagree. You wanna give the benefit of the doubt to the captors and an administration currently legislating its own lack of accountability. I don't. We'll see how this plays out over the next few years. |
Fair enough. This probably is not the thread to debate it anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
furiousmilksheikali
Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 1660
Location: In a coffee shop, splitting a 30,000 yen tab with Sekiguchi.
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| shuize wrote: |
| NorthofAmerica wrote: |
| shuize: We're gonna have to agree to disagree. You wanna give the benefit of the doubt to the captors and an administration currently legislating its own lack of accountability. I don't. We'll see how this plays out over the next few years. |
Fair enough. This probably is not the thread to debate it anyway. |
I think that wangtesol made a good point about war criminals. If we are going to point fingers at those responsible for war crimes we should acknowledge our own. I believe there is a statue commemorating Bomber Harris in St James Park (I could be wrong, please correct me), who ordered the bombings of Dresden and Hamburg, knowing that it would kill tens of thousands of civillians. The Enola Gay has become a tourist attraction and a school excursion for American school children. Robert Macnamara, in the aforementioned The Fog Of War, talked about how he and General Le May planned the most efficient way to burn to death 200,000 men, women and children (and for those who keep count of these things that is about the death toll at Nanking). The shame of World War Two is not exclusive to Japan or the Nazis in Germany.
As for Abe, I really don't know enough about him to say what I think. As wangtesol pointed out he was the son of a war criminal. But war criminals in that age were pretty common and I don't believe, yet, that war criminality is hereditary.
Shiuze: Guantanamo Bay was not part of the initial thread but it was brought up by the OP. I believe I am in general agreement with you on most issues but for you to agree with the detainment in Guantanamo Bay seems to say you are indifferent to those who are arrested on suspicion of being Arab. You say that there have been many people released from Gitmo (I hate that abbreviation but I will use it to save time), who have been re-captured as "enemy combatants" but as Wikipedia may say there is a "citation needed". There have also been plenty of people released from this illegal camp who had done nothing except be Arab, do you not think that this requires contrition on the part of the captors? There could be many reasons why these people turned up there in the first place and one of the most important ones was that the Northern Alliance (those upstanding humanitarians) were more than willing to turn in anyone who looked like they could fetch a price.
Shuize: It seems you also have to make up your mind if these people are being held as POWs or "enemy combatants". It is beneath you to say that you will apply the Geneva convention when it suits you "They can be detained until the end of hostilities" and then say it doesn't apply "they weren't wearing uniforms". Arbitrary justice doesn't deserve the name of "justice" so don't pick and choose when the Geneva Convention applies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shuize
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 1270
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 12:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Shuize: It seems you also have to make up your mind if these people are being held as POWs or "enemy combatants". It is beneath you to say that you will apply the Geneva convention when it suits you "They can be detained until the end of hostilities" and then say it doesn't apply "they weren't wearing uniforms". Arbitrary justice doesn't deserve the name of "justice" so don't pick and choose when the Geneva Convention applies. |
I did not wish to get in a lengthy debate about this in this thread. However, as a matter of clarification, I will respond breifly.
First, I do not believe I am "picking and choosing" when the Geneva Conventions apply. The Conventions themselves outline who is entitled to P.O.W. status. If an individual is captured who does not fall within those categories I listed above, it is my understanding that the Conventions do not apply.* However, there are circumstances when this is not clear. In such cases it isn't up to me, but rather is for a "competent tribunal" to make the determination (what constitutes a competent tribunal is in turn for Congress to decide).
Having said that, it is possible for such tribunals to "apply" the Conventions and determine that an individual is not entitled to legitimate P.O.W. status. Again, that is not "applying the Conventions when it suits [me]" -- rather, that is using the standards outlined in the Conventions themselves to make the determination.
Now, assuming an individual is entitled to P.O.W. status, it is my understanding that it is lawful to hold him until the end of hostilities according to the Conventions.
Feel free to point out where you believe my reasoning is mistaken.
* As I posted above, see the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War Article 3 and Article 4. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Like a Rolling Stone
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 872
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 11:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
So now there is a big issue for Mr Abe.  Do you think Japan should make nuclear bombs?  Some people say no because Japan is a peaceful country but.... do they need them now to say "Don't bimb us or we'll bomb you?"  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big John Stud
Joined: 07 Oct 2004
Posts: 513
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Like a Rolling Stone wrote: |
| So now there is a big issue for Mr Abe. Do you think Japan should make nuclear bombs? Some people say no because Japan is a peaceful country but.... do they need them now to say "Don't bimb us or we'll bomb you?" |
Good question! I read an interesting article that point out one scenerio is an nuclear arms race in this region. Japan could develop nuclear weapons pretty rapidly which would encourage the only true nuclear power in this region, China, to modify their nuclear weapons. After that India and Pakistine would do the same. South Korea would not want to be the only nation in the region without nuclear weapons.
I think more would have to happen before Japan would develop nuclear weapons though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
