[detbuch]

[QUOTE=spence;708049] International Law believes that all people are entitled to their mental integrity. Changes like the third Geneva Convention or the UN Convention on torture are meant to establish standards to help combat torture.

The basis of law is to engage a polity in a cooperative endeavor and to deter those who will not cooperate. International Law, I presume, therefore, is to engage nations to cooperate and to deter those who will not. When nations are not in agreement, International law has no basis. When rogues defy International Law and nations do not cooperate to deter them, International Law has no force. Perhaps, you consider the U.S. a rogue or uncooperative nation in its treatment of terrorist detainees. But, at least, the previous administration put up a legal unlawful combatant defence, which I find very credible. The terrorists, on the other hand, I consider absolute rogues totally unconcerned with the legal niceties of International Law, quite content to receive its unmerited protection while planning to destroy the whole caboodle. A law that protects the agent who will destroy it is an ass. It should prosecute, not protect, that agent.

I think many people just can't seem to stomach that we do live on a plant with billions of other people who also have their own interests. Instead of complaining that others don't want to play by our rules alone, we should re-learn the lost art of diplomacy.

We, the U.S., are a part of those billions who have our own interests. We don't complain that others don't want to play by our rules, we may complain about having to play by others' rules. As far as the lost art of diplomacy, as you often like to say, that cuts both ways.

By doing so you're giving the person, rather than the law, the determination as to if their action is legal or moral. If we say as a country that we "don't torture" because of our beliefs, it makes no sense to have convenient exceptions. This is openly hypocritical.

When there is a clear and present danger to the prime principle of existence, a "convenient exception" may trump the high dudgeon of beliefs.

Quite simply, this is why we have funny little sayings to help guide us through life like about not stooping to their level.

Funny little sayings are not so humorous when "their" presumably low level seriously threatens to level you.

Of course the right-wing reaction to this is to assume I must be wishing we set terrorists up in posh apartments (I'd note that Rush Limbaugh even made money sell t-shirts mocking the luxury conditions at Gitmo, hey Rush, how about you rent a cell?) but that's just phoney rhetoric. Do the minimum under the law, get the job done, be consistent. We have plenty of tools at our disposal.

Rush is a covenient straw man. Knocking him down has nothing to do with this discussioin. To what "plenty of tools" are you referring?

How much "power" did the Soviet Union pour into Afghanistan, or the US into Vietnam or Iraq? And to what end?

As for the Soviet Union, apparently not enough power and too much self interest. The US in Vietnam, had we stayed, we would probably now have an ally in South Vietnam comparable to South Korea. In Iraq there was not enough power initially, which the surge corrected. Also, we finally convinced, and/or, the Iraquis finally saw we were on their side and the insurgents were not. Hence, a democratic ally there instead of a nemesis. Of course, if we relinquish our POWER relaltionship with Irag too soon, and we abandon that country as we did South Vietnam, the "insurgents" backed by a superior POWER of money and arms can destroy the good our POWER helped to create.

Did the USSR, at one time a country with a lot of "power" crack because of an opposing hard or soft power?

Yes, without the "hard power" of US military might as a deterrence to the USSR paper tiger might, and US economic POWER, the Soviets could still be cranking.

Our "opponent" in this case is a relatively small group of militant fundamentalists empowered by a very large and complex organism deeply rooted in the cultures and economies of the planet. If it were possible to simply apply "power" and eradicate terror it may be practical to do so.

I agree--Power may ENABLE us to apply your idealistic methods

History has certainly demonstrated that while hard power can be useful, without balance it's useless and often counter productive.

The "balance" would not be possible without the "hard power."

I don't think there's a desire to go that far. Certainly there is a perceived need to reduce the hubris we're often accused of, and that the neocon school of thought was built on.

"Perceived" needs are subjective to the eyes of the beholder. Those who perceive us as hubristic, in my opinion, do so out of various agendas and personal animosities. I am not aware of a "neocon school".

Personally I believe we need to not compromise our own sovereignty, but must be very measured in policies that give the appearance of "do as I say, not as I do.

I don't think we are requiring others to "do as I say", rather we are asking them not to threaten our existence and we will be happy to engage you with commerce and friendly relations.