Slashdot Mirror
Captain America vs. The Patriot Act?
Nerd_52637 writes "Yesterday, Marvel Comics released the first in its miniseries Civil War, which can only be described as a gutsy comic-book series focusing on the whole debate over homeland security and tighter government controls in the name of public safety.
The seven-issue series once again puts superheroes right back in the thick of real-world news, just as DC Comics has Batman battling al-Qaeda in a soon-to-appear comic and Marvel's X-Men continue to explore themes of public intolerance and discrimination.
In Civil War, hero is pitted against hero in the choice of whether or not to side with the government, as issues ranging from a Guantanamo-like prison camp for superheroes, embedded reporters and the power of media all play in the mix as Superheroes are ordered to register as human WMDs or be branded fugitives."
Watchmen. Astro City - Confession, etc.
All very good, but enlightening a generation far too young to do anything. In another 15 years kids who experience political intelligence and develop the ability to weigh up complex social debates will be able to make a difference to the world. If one still exists. The problem is not our children, its the fucking clueless, apathetic, greedy and lazy adults that grew up on a diet of might-is-right Hollywood poison for the last two decades. How do you re-educate people who live in denial while other peoples kids are bombed with depleted uranium so they can drive their fat ass around in a gas guzzling SUV?
Have you even read any comic books lately? Let me tell you what has just gone on recently. Batman has had his mind erased by other superheros because he found out that Zatanna was presured into erasing the minds of villians by other super heroes. I just read a comic book where Giant Man is an abusive @sshole and sprays his wife (Wasp) with bugspray when they got into a fight. He then essentally helps another world faction of heros to essentially invade the United States. (Almost confused this plot line in the Ultimate universe with the mentioned in the article.)
Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
To all you people rushing to say "Obscure comic company X did this in 1983 maaaan!"... just because some comic you read dealt with the issue of corrupt government before is not the same thing. This particular government is QUITE a particular government, and George Bush is named as the president in this Marvel series (according to TFA), which makes this a pretty specific attack on this very specific post-9/11 presidency and I think that makes this quite noteworthy. This isn't just about the fiction of it.
FSM, grant me the serenity to preview that which I cannot change...
actually, there is a third category of persons beyond "lawful enemy combatant" and "citizen". that is the "unlawful enemy combatant". this is a special case where the person was engaged in hostile war actions against the enemy, but does not meet the requirments of being a POW (because they engaged in military acts unlawfully as defined by article 4 of geneva convention iii).
they aern't civliians because they engaged in war acts and they aren't awarded geneva protections as a POW because they didn't meet the standard defined in the geneva convention (specifically, they fought like terrorists).
article 5 of GC iii decalres that if the status of an individual is in question (i.e. not a lawful enemy combatant and not a civilian), then they are to be treated with accord to the geneva convention until a competent tribunal declares their status.
what tribunal would that be? well, a military tribunal that is run by the commander of the enemy armed forces.
in the case of gitmo detainees, they have their tribunal and they are declared by Bush (the leader of the US armed forces) to be "unlawful enemy combatants", which is a class defined by US precedent (ex parte quirin) that is neither a civilian or a lawful prisoner of war.
there are those who would claim that "unlawful enemy combatant" doesn't really exist because the geneva convention doesn't define it ignore an important and relevant point that the geneva convention (in article 4 of GCiii) defines in painstaking detail what a lawful enemy combatant would be.
if it was as simple as "those who engage in the war are lawful enemy combatants and all others are civilians", then why didn't the geneva convention state that? the obvious reason is because it would be ridiculous. the naive interpretation of the geneva convention would have us going into afghanistan to get al-queda, but when we caputre a terrorist, we would need to turn them over TO al-queda for prosecution because they don't fit the narrow definition of a lawful enemy combatant.
the fact that the geneva convention does take painstaking detail to describe teh types of persons who are qualified to be treated with the rights of the geneva convention, implies the existence of unlawful enemy combatants. us supreme court precedent then confirms that implication (search for ex parte quirin).
General Miller was sent from Guantanamo to oversee the Abu Ghraib prison system before the scandal hit; he was credited with finding ways of interrogation at Guantanamo and was asked to do the same at Abu Ghraib. Clearly there's a connection.
That's also along with 2 ex-Guantanamo employees who wrote books on their experiences, interviews with former Guantanamo detainees and FBI reports of abuse. Heck, the Department of Defense had to concede of instances of inappropriate actions like a female guard sitting on a detainee's lap and trying to stroke his hair, or throwing red ink on a man and telling him it was menstrual blood.
Wrong. Read it in the text (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm):
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
[...]
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
[...]
Article 5
The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.
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.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.