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."
Superheroes are ordered to register as human WMDs
Or what? They'll arrest them? Superheroes are used to fighting other super-beings. If pissed off, how many puny humans could they kill before getting taken down?
This could turn out to be made of Win and Good after all.
All very good, but enlightening a generation far too young to do anything.
Uh huh. And what would you say is the target demographic -- and the average age -- of today's comic book reader?
(Hint: Your first guess is wrong.)
Hmmm... I disagree. While both awesome pieces of work, neither is really dealing with the issues of government control in the same way, if at all.
For one, the conspiracy in Watchmen is non-governmental: It's actually an exceedingly liberal private citizen (Adrian/Ozymandias) who is controlling public opinion and worldview. The government plays a strang side-role in this; they are environment, not actor.
And Astro City: Confession, while one of my all-time favorite comics, is really dealing with public opinion and its manipulation by authority in a much softer, more human-focused way.
Maybe a better example would be Frank Miller's Martha Washington books, or Elektra: Assassin. Still, I don't think anything out there invalidates this project.
"I don't believe there to be any hard evidence that prisoners are mistreated at Guantanamo;"
I don't know what you mean by "hard" evidence but we know for sure people have been waterboarded there and that's classified as torture. People have also been subjected to food and sleep deprivation, extremes of temprature, and being strapped in uncomfortable positions for extended periods in specially built devices. Finally people have been injected with various drugs.
Those have all been admitted to by the military itself. Not just allegations by prisoners. The military feels like those actions are not torture. But they again the military also feels like these human beings do not deserve all the rights specified under the UN human rights charter or the geneva conventions.
"the greatest complaint is that they are tried before a military tribunal instead of a civilian one (could be wrong, I hardly follow the issue)."
No the greatest complaint is that people have been severly tortured for extended periods of time. Those complaints are from people who were eventually let go. Perhaps you should follow the issue more closely. It's your country after all and you are somewhat responsible for what it does.
Having said that who know what's going there? It's not like any of us are allowed visits and even the red cross has to ask permission and schedule a visit. Nobody is stupid enough to torture people in front of visiting congressmen and red cross. They probably clean up for those visits.
Finally when the red cross asked to interview prisoners privately they were refused. The military would not allow it. Take that for what it's worth. I remember Saddam didn't want his scientists interviewed privately by the weapons inspectors before the war too.
evil is as evil does
I mean, think about it. Some guy with super powers that could bag any government agency including its agents anytime and twice on Sunday, and he's still allowed to have a secret identity, lead a normal life and only put on his spandex to hunt down some bad guys?
In reality, he'd have been approached by the feds ages ago and offered the choice to either work for them or, more likely, some dirt would've been dumped on him to have the media label him the greatest threat to humanity since Saddam, then he'd been hunted down 'til he's dead.
Face it. Government does NOT like power that isn't in its hands and under its control.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Then, last month, I read about the stunning news report by the "Washington Post". It reported on CIA-gate: the CIA, with the full approval of the president, has been running a network of secret prisons where enemies of the American nation are interrogated. Although this network is nowhere near the status of the Soviet gulag, the network does put tremendous credibility in the original accusations by AI.
At times like these, we need a Captain America to fight for truth, justice, and Western values. A network of secret prisons grossly violates the most sacred of Western values.
You don't get it both ways. They are either soldiers, or they are criminals. If they are criminals, then they get trials in front of a judge. If they are soldiers, then they get POW status and Geneva Convention protection. There ain't no third category except in the minds of people who want to establish a class of subhumans that have not been endowed by their creator with any inherent and inalienable rights; (among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).
http://www.genevaconventions.org/ You won't find that stated as such in there.
What you will find is that
If the local authorities do not exist, you may be held until they are established.
Other than that, you have all the same rights and protections that a POW has, except for things like getting paid.
The military is not allowed to torture anyone it captures. Regardless of their past actions.
Yes they are both graphic novels by Alan Moore.
I agree that V for Vendetta (although one could consider it fear mongering) is absolutely relevant today, just as it was when it was written.
I suppose OP might consider 1984 to be outdated as well, but I believe the basic story of a government exerting total and brutal control over the population is a timeless warning message.
Sometimes my arms bend back.
Documented in an Army Inspector General's report obtained by Salon. Here's a link to the official report (sorry, PDF).
If the methods used at Guantanamo disturbed the FBI agents who visited (another source of problem reports early on), then the rest of us should be disturbed too.
Ah, slashdot. Where your pet issues are the only important, meaningful ones.
And the l33t shall inherit the 34r7h.
I'm sorry but if your default position was to believe the CIA and not Amnesty International then it's going to take more than superheroes to help you.
Read Pynchon.
Not if they are operaitng IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY AT THE TIME - they are not acting as spies then!
if you as an invader are attacked by citizens with guns, then you have to treat any subsequent prisoners as POWS - in fact any and ALL prisoners have to be treated as POWS under article 4 until proven otherwise
"illegial combatants" is a term made up by the current administration that doesnt even make sense...