Amazing,
As I understand it the GC does allow for the death penalty under certain situations - including international offenses. But that is besides the point - the issue is not what the penalty shall be but the procedure by which that penalty is arrived at. I'm sure you'd agree that sentencing an innocent man to death in a secret tribunal is easier than it is in a courts martial where the defendant has at least some nominal rights.
Seeker took issue with secret tribunals - as opposed to being tried by the military under the normal rules of courst-martial - in the latter the defendant is treated in exactly the same manner as would a US soldier guilty of the same offense.
Which would you prefer?
It all hinges on the central question, really the only question - are these people to be treated under the Geneva Convention or not? If the death penalty is permitted under the GC then why would the administration prefer secret tribunals - as distinct from courts martial that are already permitted to act and sentence under international law? That is, no special requests of Congress for tribunal power need be sought. One obvious answer is so that the prisoners can be interrogated. Maybe that is as it should be but one must at least admit to what is being done.
In any event, it is no argument against Seeker's point - in fact the GC is the central issue. That it can be so readily put aside when it was such a big issue, say in WWII, in regard to allied prisoners shows that it all depends on whose foot the shoe is.
As for Tony Blair - I think the tendency to label sides as conservative or liberal as is so often done is a very unsophistcated way of proceding indeed. Right now in Her Majesty's Prison Belmarsh languish a number of British citizens who have not been charged with any offense nor does it look like they will be anytime soon. They are though to have been associated with Al Quaida. Thus, when the going gets rough the western democracies are quite prepared to abandon the constitutional rights of their citizens. Just qs the US did with Japanese US citizens in WWII. Similarly, the US asked Bosnia to detain a number of naturalized Bosnian citizens who are Arabs because they had contact with Al Quaida members. They are now at Guantanamo Bay since they were due to be released, having never been charged with a crime. Of course, many of these people were inspired by the US in the first place to fight the Russians who had apparently been deliberately drawn into Afghanistan by US manipulations during the "liberal" Carter administration.
As for trusting conservatives ahead of liberals, it's hard to pick one over the other - certainly George Bush's nefarious share dealings show that, born again Christian or not, he is perfectly happy to stiff people when it suits him. Then we have Clinton bombing a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan that has led to untold suffering for many - and the UK government refused to supply necessary pharmaceuticals. The list goes on, really. The conservative and liberal sides are there mainly to create the illusion that people have a choice.
LPH
