[q]Consent of the governed. The beaurocrats in the UN could make an international law codifying a right to an abortion - some would argue that's a human right. That gives the shaft to the people opposed to abortion (not to mention unborn human beings) and they wouldn't have a chance to do anything about it (because their representatives wouldn't have a say in the matter).
There are debates over what exactly is a human right. You get past the basics and then you have people arguing high speed internet access is a human right. Lawmaking on an international level is a very unseemly business, in my mind.
And if putting your country first is xenophobic, so be it. I think it's more like patriotism.[/q]
You have a veto power for any binding resolution. And those bureaucrats are the peoples representatives, at least for any democratic system. If you are that concerned about the actions of the US' representative and don't trust your own government (who could? who does!), than call for greater democratic control such as referendums on key UN issues, etc. Or, I suppose, admit you have no interest in getting on with the rest of the world and just decline to participate in the UN or Security Council.
[q]Firstly, torture (not counting Abu Graib) has not necessarily been committed. Sure, unpleasant things have been done to people. When you get down to it, though, putting somebody in a holding cell before trial can be considered an unpleasant experiance.
Secondly, those potential innocents were picked up opposing coalition forces without an official military and stuff. The Geneva Convention technically applies only between signers, as far as I know. It wouldn't include a professional insurgent from Saudi Arabia. Which undoubtedly some are. You and I cannot know how many of those interrogated are innocent or guilty.
Personally though, I don't like the use of torture. I don't really know how effective it is, and I have mixed feelings.[/q]
Firstly, it has. Techniques like waterboarding, forcing to stand until you wet yourself, sleep deprivation, etc are all forms of torture and UN inspectors have already called it such. Now you can
quibble with the UNs verdict should you wish, but ultimately it is the
UN Convention Against Torture, not US, and if you can't abide the rules then admit it and leave the convention.
Secondly, some of these innocents (innocent until proven guilty, remember?
Article 11) were abducted from soveriegn states like Italy or Germany, and even without consent of their government. Those captured in, say, Afghanistan are highly suspect; the US criteria for an illegal combatant consisted of khaki clothes, a gun and a swatch, which applies to pretty much every adult male in Afghanistan. Many individuals were captured by the Northern Alliance for reward money, with no checks implemented to prevent them being simply kidnappings.
Also, the Geneva convention applies to any action performed by the signing nation, regardless of whom they are fighting (i.e. you can't gas an enemy because you signed but they didn't; it's a code of conduct). It does include provision for irregular fighters, as well as civillians, and even if you can abstract out a specific group, then international law such as the aforementioned convention against torture and universal declaration of human rights still applies (as well as civillian protections in the GCs, i.e. to protect criminals from abuse). Also, IIRC capture for terrorist acts (a different issue to capture for guerilla warfare or military insurgency) should be treated under the laws of the region the act took place in; there's no way to legally just remove the rights accorded by international convention. Lastly (but not finally) there is a Geneva Convention requirement for a court to fairly identify the POw or otherwise status of any individual wishing to assert rights as a POW.
It is a massive problem that we don't know how many guilty people there are in Gitmo or soforth. As it stands, none, because there is no legal system to fairly try them. The 'gulag archipelago' was an effective term for this system, which is nothing more than arbitrary detention. We've seen people being held for months or years, including those tortured under extraordinary rendition, on a bases that have proven to be critically and obviously wrong. The 2 Brits sent to Guantanamo for having a battery charger spring to mind (even though MI5 had checked and cleared them).
And torture is grossly ineffective. It leads the captive to say what they think the captor wishes to hear in order to survive, rather than the truth.
