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."

54 of 303 comments (clear)

  1. Been there, done that by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 2, Informative

    Watchmen. Astro City - Confession, etc.

    1. Re:Been there, done that by enrac · · Score: 4, Informative

      They touched on this in Dark Night Returns. Reagan uses Superman in some Cold War skirmish, Batman is a fugitive . . .

    2. Re:Been there, done that by Count+Fenring · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Been there, done that by NMerriam · · Score: 4, Funny

      And it's still enjoyable today when Watchmen just makes one depressed with its 1980s "the end is nigh" fearmongering.

      I agree, that '80s stuff is so dated, I can't believe anyone would think it has any relevance to modern events. Most political commentary really has no relevence beyond a few months from publication date, so I don't understand why anyone would waste their time writing or reading it.

      I'd write more, but I'm meeting a friend to see V for Vendetta in a few minutes.

      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    4. Re:Been there, done that by cliffmeece · · Score: 3, Informative
      Not just that, but in the eighties the Avengers had this as a recurring story element. Specifically it was about government regulation of the Avengers, and if I recall correctly, they had some government regulator guy who was always breathing down their neck. Flat-top guy with sunglasses.

      Also, that was the same guy ( I'm pretty sure ) that tried to screw Captain America out of his identity, which again is pretty much the same storyline.

      Their argument was that they (the government) 'owned' the concept and image of Captain America and wanted to get some return on their investment. CA refused and gave up the costume and shield and became a fugitive hero (much like in Civil War) while the government appointed super patriot as the new CA.

      It got worked out in the end, though ;-)

    5. Re:Been there, done that by snuf23 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    6. Re:Been there, done that by Babbster · · Score: 3, Informative

      The sweet, red-headed fellow you're talking about was Avengers liaison, Henry Peter Gyrich who, by the way, became something of a "nice" guy during the last run of Avengers leading up to the infamous (and annoying) "Avengers Disassembled" storyline. One of his "best" moments was when he forced The Falcon onto the Avengers because he felt that they didn't have enough minority representation (and, to be fair, they didn't). It was a pretty interesting storyline considering the uproar that Affirmative Action has caused over the years.

    7. Re:Been there, done that by mvdwege · · Score: 4, Informative
      the conspiracy in Watchmen is non-governmental: It's actually an exceedingly liberal private citizen (Adrian/Ozymandias) who is controlling public opinion and worldview.

      I respectfully submit that when a person starts to think that they can cure all humanity's ills by themselves, that they are the only enlightened leader capable of doing so, and that the end justifies the means, even if the means is killing millions, that that person has no right to any political classification but Fascist.

      If they were to proclaim it was in service of the greater good, of which they are merely the executive officer, then they might make a claim to the classification of Communist (specifically a Marxist-Leninist, 'vanguard of the proletariat' and all that).

      In no way can it be claimed they are a liberal, not even in the distorted US meaning of the word.

      This message brought to you by your local Political Education Officer.

      Mart
      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    8. Re:Been there, done that by siesta+at+uni · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Transmetropolitan?

      All about corrupt government, and a president who seems to be able to get away with incredible abuses of power, with no-one seeming to care.

  2. Yeah, but will it be by Ryz0r · · Score: 3, Funny
    The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny?

    OK, that flash has been overused recently, but Hero vs Hero? I couldnt resist!

    --
    Peace, Love, Unity, Respect
  3. Future issues with issues by nizo · · Score: 4, Funny
    ...Guantanamo-like prison camp for superheroes...

    I just know the issue where they make all the superheroes pile into a giant naked pyramid will be a big hit.

    1. Re:Future issues with issues by killjoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "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
    2. Re:Future issues with issues by PostItNote · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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).

    3. Re:Future issues with issues by Watson+Ladd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But they have rights. Like food, medical attention, and no waterboarding. And you release them after the war is over.

      --
      Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
    4. Re:Future issues with issues by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Future issues with issues by killjoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Good lord, aside from the drug-injection allegation, some of the things you listed are positively cozy compared to special forces training."

      I hope you are not telling me it's OK for the army to abduct me and force me to go through the special forces training.

      "Not just in the U.S. but in many nations. The problem is that everyone has their own definition of torture."

      Sure. The UN has defined torture in one way, the US laws have defined torture one way, this administration has defined torture another way. It's gotten to the stage where nobody can accuse anybody of torture anymore. If accused you simply re-define torture and claim you are fine.

      "I'd really like to see a link where the U.S. military said they were injecting Guantanamo Bay inmates with drugs for any purpose other than medical attention."

      The intelligence agencies have lots of drugs they inject people in order to get them to tell the truth. Many of these are opiates or hallucinegens of some sort. They are top secret though so outside of the military I don't think anybody has done analysis on them.

      ". If they are the latter, ok they may not have Constitutional rights that an American would have"

      I agree with your there. I also would add that they are human beings and should be treated as human beings and according the universal declaration of human rights as defined by the UN. No matter how vile they are still humans and are thus endowed by their creator with certain inailable rights.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    6. Re:Future issues with issues by killjoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How do you know they are terrorists? Because the president says so?

      Also there have been many people released from guantanamo after two years of being there. Is the US releasing terrorists into afghanistan?

      --
      evil is as evil does
    7. Re:Future issues with issues by mr100percent · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

  4. In classic comic tradition by i+am+kman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Kudos to Marvel!

    Comics in general and Marvel in particular have had a long tradition in embracing social issues - witness the classic Marvel comic series that decried on McCarthyism. This one is interesting because they aren't really taking sides.

    Of course, many cartoons these days are overtly political (Southpark, American Dad, Boondocks) - at least Marvel tries hard to let the readers make up their own minds and explore the issue themselves.

    1. Re:In classic comic tradition by subgrappler · · Score: 3, Funny

      now lets see "Hulk vs DRM" imagine how pissed he would be when he finds out his music player only supports atrac.

  5. lol, wut? by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:lol, wut? by Firethorn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For that matter, what effect would 'registration' have? How would having a list of 'Human WMDs' enhance your safety? It's like a gun registry. It only helps you when you feel the need to collect them from the law-abiding group who registered them according to the laws. The criminals aren't going to tell you about them. Besides, if you know enough to go after them for being a unregistered WMD, can't the government note that down in the list that way?

      GURPs superheroes had a service where you could register your paranormal powers at an agency. If a situation came up that you'd be useful for, you could be called up and hired as a temporary contractor for extremely good money.

      Do you have the ability to shrink down to 6" while retaining your normal strength? Well, Timmy fell down this well...

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    2. Re:lol, wut? by deadsquid · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, no, no. They'll sue them for copyright infringement because "superhero" is taken. "WMD" is not.

      --
      Idiot, n. A member of a large and powerful tribe whose influence in human affairs has always been dominant
    3. Re:lol, wut? by GreyKnight · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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?
      Sonuds like you haven't been watching Justice League Unlimited. A government agency with sufficient resources can indeed make itself a threat to superheroes...
    4. Re:lol, wut? by Kelson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or what? They'll arrest them? Superheroes are used to fighting other super-beings.

      Exactly.

      The ones who agree to work with the government are now authorized -- perhaps even obligated -- to take down those who don't.

  6. Right subjects, wrong audience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    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?

    1. Re:Right subjects, wrong audience by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.)

  7. Um... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 3, Interesting
    From TFA:

    There is, for instance, one accident where a group of novice superheroes gets in over its head, leading to the death of a schoolyard full of children.

    The politicians are concerned about public safety. So Congress passes a bill forcing all superheroes to register with the government as human weapons of mass destruction, and to work, in effect, for Washington. Superheroes who don't comply will themselves be branded fugitives.

    Geez, weren't the X-men already hiding from the government for being dangerous?

    Try something more intelligent, people. Talk about the ISPs snooping on you, about the RIAA lobbying the congress, about the Patriot Act, DRM, DMCA and all that stuff that's being shoved down our throats.

    But do it in the near future, present a fear-driven country, where all civil liberties are ALREADY lost. We want to see people being arrested for having analog TV's! For copying music in authorized formats! For using encryption in their e-mails! We want Big Brother! (in the comics, that is)
    1. Re:Um... by pseudochaotic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ah, slashdot. Where your pet issues are the only important, meaningful ones.

      --
      And the l33t shall inherit the 34r7h.
  8. If they make them register by MourningBlade · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...but even if they DO register as human WMDs will the government know where they are?

  9. Was already wondering when this is gonna come by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  10. CIA Secret Prisons vs. Amnesty International by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful
    As a card-carrying member of Amnesty International (AI), I was shocked when AI accused Washington of running a Soviet-style gulag. I burned my AI membership card and flushed the ashes down the toilet. After all, AI could not provide any evidence supporting the outrageous claims, and using hyperbole to support human rights damages AI's credibility and the ultimate mission of rescuing victims of brutal (often Chinese) human-rights abuses.

    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.

    1. Re:CIA Secret Prisons vs. Amnesty International by FLEB · · Score: 5, Funny

      At times like these, we need a Captain America to fight for truth, justice, and Western values.

      As well as a plunger and some Scotch tape.

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    2. Re:CIA Secret Prisons vs. Amnesty International by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course though secret prisons/cell-blocks/wings for intelligence work have been used for about as long as there have been Nation-States and Intelligence operations, so what the CIA is doing isn't anything really new except for the fact that they shuffle people around in other countries.

      When one operates as a spy or irregular military operative traditionally they don't have near the same rights or protections as a uniformed military or diplomatic operative. But now things are different in terms of the media and the general public's mind as to how these people are treated while the actual treatment of said operatives continues on as it has in times of war for hundreds of years.

    3. Re:CIA Secret Prisons vs. Amnesty International by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Captain Canuck has been sitting back and watching it all unfold with a sort of morbid fascination. Captain America in the mean time is toying with moving North -- he always did enjoy blasting down a large snow covered hill on that shield when nobody was looking.

    4. Re:CIA Secret Prisons vs. Amnesty International by pla · · Score: 2

      As a card-carrying member of Amnesty International (AI), I was shocked when AI accused Washington of running a Soviet-style gulag.

      It surprises me that a "card-carrying member" of AI wouldn't already have heard the extensive proof of our network of secret prisons when the story finally hit the mainstream news... Indy media such as Democracy Now have covered the topic every few months since 2004!

      One from November 2004, an interview with Stephen Gray...
      July 2004 with Michael Posner...
      June 2004 (just a brief unsubstantiated blurb on the topic).



      Sadly, superheroes could tell the government to go pound sand - What could Bush do against Superman? But we mere normals have little choice in the matter. Please leave your DNA sample at the door and you'll receive your RealID card in two to six weeks as long as your name doesn't sound Middle-Eastern.


      Now, if you want secret prison conspiracy theories - Google for "Rex 84".

  11. What comic books are you freaking reading by technoextreme · · Score: 2, Informative
    f course, we all know they'll do The Right Thing(tm).

    No... I'm not cynical about all my favorite comics, movies etc. being ruined by politically-correct mediocrity... ;)

    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.
  12. And someone mod'ed that "insightful". by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Have you read the geneva conventions?
    Yes. Many times.
    They are being granted the "rights" given under the geneva conventions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Conventi on to those who fight without uniform against civilian populations.
    And you're linking to Wikipedia. How about just linking to the documents themselves?

    http://www.genevaconventions.org/
    The "rights" of terrorists include the right to be killed like the barbarians they are.
    You won't find that stated as such in there.

    What you will find is that ... if you do not meet the qualifications to be a POW, you are a "civilian" and must be turned over to the local authorities for any crimes you may have committed.

    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.
    1. Re:And someone mod'ed that "insightful". by bkirkby · · Score: 2, Informative

      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).

    2. Re:And someone mod'ed that "insightful". by Pseudonym · · Score: 2, Insightful
      in the case of gitmo detainees, they have their tribunal

      The first tribunal was held in November 2004, a full three years after the first detainees were captured. (To be fair, the tribunals were delayed by about four months due to their legal statis being challenged in the US courts.)

      The Geneva Convention doesn't state how long you have to wait to get your tribunal, though the US has laws against indefinite detention without trial. Nevertheless, it does state that you should be afforded all of the rights of a POW while you wait. Whether or not the detainees were afforded those rights before November 2004 is a reasonable question to ask.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    3. Re:And someone mod'ed that "insightful". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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).

      You appear to be under the mistaken belief that the people in Camp Delta were all captured in combat against US forces in Afghanistan or Iraq. Unfortunately, that is completely false. Some were; many were not.

      In fact, the detainees include people like Bisher al-Rawi and Jamil el-Banna who were arrested in Gambia, while on a business trip. How anyone can classify such people as "unlawful combatants", I cannot imagine. They were not engaging in combat in any sense of the word. They were not even present in a war zone! Even if they are terrorists, which is a crime they have not been charged with, that does not alter the fact that they are unambiguously civilians. And that means it is unambiguously unconstitutional for them to be held indefinitely without charge or trial.

      Moussaoui was not sent to Camp Delta; the fair trial he has been given is the finest thing America has achieved this year. So why are other people accused of similar acts (plotting, but not carrying out, terrorism) not being given similarly fair civilian trials?

      ----------
      Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment. It's been 1 hour, 20 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment - this is getting ridiculous. If you want to dissuade people from posting anonymously, then at least have the honesty to say so, instead of pretending you're trying to stop flooding.

    4. Re:And someone mod'ed that "insightful". by grimJester · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The only place where the word "unlawful" appears in the third Geneva Convention is the sentence

      "Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention.".

      The word "lawful" doesn't appear at all. The definitions you're talking about are prefaced with

      "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:"

      The text relevant to those who don't fall under any of the POW categories is as follows:

      Part I. General Provisions

      ...

      Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

      Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

      In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

  13. This is about more than the theme by orbz · · Score: 5, Informative

    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...
  14. Eh the whole Registration thing won't work by Ka+D'Argo · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Sure it's been done in the X-Men back and forth but in the Marvel Universe there's just too many uber-powerful characters to require Registration.

    Scarlet Witch registers, ok cool. So the government now has her on file as a human (or humanoid really for the non human types as well) WMD. That's great. What the fuck does that do to stop a character, like old Scarlet, from going apeshit and destroying the entire fucking universe?

    It's already technically done as well in another sense: villians. Example, take Thanos right. Villian, bad guy. Automatically you consider him a humanoid WMD right. Again same situation. Having him on file, does jack and or shit. So Uncle Sam keeps him on file, hell we'll go one step further, keeps GPS and the whole schebang on him 24/7. Yea when he gets a huge powerup like the Infinite Gauntlet, being able to scramble your military ain't shit. The only benefit it would have is if they notified heroes of such things apon villians. But it's not, since they are only doing Hero registration.

    Either way it's somewhat of an old storyline that while a good one, seems to be a publicity stunt. Considering the current state of America, we're pretty unhappy with our government, our president and basically how restricted life has become. Leave it to Marvel to sellout for the all mighty $

    --
    Aw Frell this
  15. Unfair! by SEWilco · · Score: 4, Funny

    But I'm not a WMD, my only power is in gaining /. Funny mod karma!

  16. Who's going to explain this comic to by alfredo · · Score: 4, Funny

    bush? You can't hide the comics from him, he gets real angry when they do that.

    --
    photosMy Photostream
  17. Try reading the Watchmen again by GunFodder · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I recently read the Watchmen again. It nicely captured the sense of impending nuclear holocaust that was a staple of the Cold War era. The Cold War ended along with the Soviet Union back in '91.

    In the Watchmen the Soviet Union invades Afghanistan and threatens Pakistan, which nearly provokes World War III. Nowadays we invade Afghanistan and Iran, and no one does anything except quietly complain about American imperialism. It just isn't the same without another nuclear superpower.

  18. I'm sorry but... by caitsith01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  19. Slashdot heroes and villains by Aceticon · · Score: 4, Funny

    Aceticon's list of /. heroes and villains:

    Heroes:
    - First Poster
    - Insightfull Man
    - Super Funny
    - Anonymous Coward
    - Cmdr Taco

    Villains:
    - Grammar Nazi
    - Insensitive Clod
    - Mega Troll
    - Anonymous Coward's Evil Twin

  20. Re:According to Geneva Convention they have NO rig by Yvanhoe · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.
  21. Re:You just don't get it by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

  22. Book: Brave Men Run by mo26101 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There is a very good book that addresses people with "super powers" and how the government reacts: Brave Men Run. The audio version of the book is available for free as a podcast.

  23. Re:You just don't get it by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If they're fighting out of uniform then they're illegal combatants.

    Trouble is, most of the people in Guantanamo, weren't actually fighting at all.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  24. Re:Why "gutsy" by hey! · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I mean really, does criticizing the US really require such moral fortitude and personal risk?

    Sure. When it comes with the risk of financial losses.

    People, and the organizations we create, have a remarkable capacity for adapting to the status quo. Formulas for easy success, even small successes, are to the businessman what crack is to an addict.

    It's artists who want to do something different, even he's working in the framework of an old formula. To the businessman, originality has utility, but isn't a value itself. If he's in an art oriented business, he wants just enough originality to make marketing the product easy, but not enough to undermine the security of a proven money making recipe.

    I was reading recently about Richard Williams, the animator who did the titles for the old Pink Panther movies, and was the supervising animator on Roger Rabbit. He'd been working on a film, The Thief and the Cobbler off an on for years, and after his Roger Rabbit Oscar, he got investment funding to complete it. Now by bad luck, around this time Disney released Aladdin, which was a huge hit. The Thief and the Cobbler, which was close to completion at the time, also had a middle eastern theme, which conjured up the prospect of big bucks for the investors. But when they saw the working prints, the film was nothing like Aladdin. It was different, almost experimental. So faced with a risky experimental film on one hand, and what looked like a sure fire formula on the other, the investors (Warner Bros) did the obvious thing. Even though there was less than ten minutes of animation left to complete the film, they had the Completion Bond Company sieze the film and send it of to Korea, where it was not completed, but entirely reworked into the nearest thing to an Aladdin clone they could manage on a shoestring budget and a schedule tight enough to capture some marketing rebound from Aladdin. The result was released and fell into obscurity within a few weeks of opening.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.