Here we go again. The best response, and I mean the *BEST* response, to those of us who are upset about the military’s tentative move to revise Army guidelines for interrogation is the following:
First of all, if you read only the first half of the LAT piece and Henke and John Cole and Andrew Sullivan, you would never know that (1) the changes at issue only apply to unlawful combatants, not to our treatment of proper POWs and (2) it is a stretch, at best, to say that the Geneva Conventions even apply to unlawful international combatants.
It is everyone’s favorite song and dance- the unlawful combatant two-step! Really- we are adhering to the Geneva Convention- just these unlawful combatants, who, by the way, are whoever we say they are and everyone when it fits our needs, who don’t apply!
Where did this postmodernism come from? Torture? Why waterboarding isn’t torture! It’s just ‘psychologically painful,’ but it doesn’t leave any LASTING MARKS!
Leaving people chained in stress positions to the floor for 24+ hours in their own urine in feces in freezing rooms? That’s not torture, you pussies! That is a valid interrogation technique, and besides- THEY ARE UNLAWFUL COMBATANTS and don’t you know THEY WANT TO KILL US? Why are you afraid of a little loud music and some air conditioning? Quit coddling the PEOPLE WHO WANT TO KILL US!
It’s almost like we haven’t been down this road before- certain quarters have learned NOTHING from the excesses of Abu Ghraib, which was brought on by this loosening of norms, muddying of the waters regarding the rights and status of detainees, all combined with the attitude that we have to get tough because THEY WANT TO KILL US.
So the next time you hear a report that soldiers may have accidentally killed another Afghan taxi driver, you can rest assured it was probably just an honest mistake- our guys probably thought he was an unlwawful combatant.
And for those of you who want the reasoning for this in a non-snarky format, check out this comment from McQ:
Do we follow the Geneva Conventions because we believe in human rights, or do we follow the Geneva Conventions because they allow us the legal cover to differently classify human beings as we so choose and only apply those rights to those we decide fit one group and not the other?
I mean, how hard is it to find a reason to justify (or maybe a better word is “rationalize”) changing the classification of a lawful combatant to that of an unlawful combatant on the fly with little more pretext than saying, “well his uniform wasn’t quite regulation” if we seriously wanted a “legal” reason to apply more rigorous and harsh interrogation techniques?
I agree to the single standard of conduct by our interrogators. Then there’s never a question of limits. Argue the limits if you want too, but I can’t agree with different interrogation standards based only in “legalities”.
Steve
It’s almost a shame to see John make this argument:
It’s as though he accepts that the only way of persuading the wingnuts is to argue from pure self-interest. He knows that the idea that we shouldn’t torture because it’s simply wrong is a complete non-starter with them, and so he has to show them that, right or wrong, torture is counterproductive as well. And that’s what makes me sad.
chopper
this idea that it’s okay to torture random people as long as you figure out a way to classify them so that human rights don’t apply to them is completely beyond the pale.
then again, its the same reasoning that lets the president strip US citizens of their constitutional rights and lock them up indefinitely.
i just don’t understand how people can’t see the problem in using loopholes and lawyering to try to avoid applying the protections of the geneva conventions. it goes against the entire spirit of human rights to try to wiggle out of providing them to people you don’t like.
beral
Human rights are’nt the issue. The issue is we don’t want to see a US soldier in front of the UN or any other foreign power on some type of charge. It would not be fair.
OnTheOther Hand
Stupid question: Are all those employees/contractors from Blackwater, Halliburton, and other security agencies employed by the US and stationed in Iraq unlawful combatants? I haven’t noticed their uniforms.
82ndAbnVet
And when someday American soldiers are taken POW and tortured in some future conflict, these same clowns will react with faux outrage at the heathen inhuman (probably godless) enemy… They don’t have a clue because they don’t have a stake in the matter. Its not like the dudes at RedState are flocking to the recruiters saying ‘please sign me up!’
fwiffo
Wow, what a barking liberal moonbat.
Seriously though, how is it that the murderous intentions (or not) of some un-not-lawful enemy combatanter prisoner of the war against the islamofascists that wish to do us harm and have gay marriage with the Mexicans has anything to do with our moral/ethical stance on torture?
Is torture and degrading treament wrong, or is it not? If it’s not wrong, why should the legal status, or the motivations of the torturee matter? If it’s wrong, why do we allow the motiviations of Islamonutbags to comprimise our principles?
Nikki
We are America. We are better than this (supposed to be anyway).
Al Maviva
Live by legalities, die by legalities. I am at a loss for what to do with captured AQ.
Assuming we have to treat captured AQ by the Third Geneva Conventions EPW standards, that imposes some duties on the U.S. I read Article 17 as completely forbidding any kind of interrogation.
How can interrogation in captivity, at the hands of a chap sitting in front of two armed military police, maybe with a war dog, be anything other than coercive? It is a polite legal fiction if you insist that questioning at the tip of a gun barrel is not coercive. Practically, I can’t imagine more coercive circumstances.
The ultimate fate of captured AQ is also an open question that I haven’t heard any good suggestions on. We cannot repatriate captured AQ to their home nations, since we know there is a likelihood they would face torture or other abuse in Saudi or Pakistan or Syria, and in addition to violating the Anti-Torture Act, Article 12 of the Conventions states:
So repatriation is out – never mind the practical difficulty that a substantial number of those repatriated turn up on the battlefield later.
We can’t put them on trial. The only things for which an EPW may be tried under the Conventions, are war crimes, or disciplinary infractions while in captivity. Ordinary AQ killing American troops are off-limits to the criminal justice system. In addition to committing acts extra-territorial to our judicial system, the Conventions do not provide for criminal trials of EPW. So it would be extralegal as a matter of U.S. law, and as a matter of the Conventions, to try captured AQ in U.S. courts.
I have heard it suggested that we treat AQ in a manner similar to unsuccessful asylum seekers who cannot be repatriated, that we work to find a third party nation (that doesn’t engage in torture of AQ, that agrees to treat them per Geneva Conventions standards) for repatriation. This seems unlikely, I cannot imagine two many third party nations clamoring to host AQ members captured on the battlefield by U.S. troops.
The other alternative, of course, is to simply not capture any more AQ.
Sorry this is long, but captured AQ are striking me more and more as a Chinese thumb puzzle, and the more we pull on it, the worse the situation gets.
norbizness
I do like the approach. If they’re not terrorists, turn them into terrorists through inhumane treatment and an acuteness sense of dread and unfairness. Then you can hold them for a few more years as your international credibility with allies circles the drain.
LITBMueller
Heh! Looks like we should ditch the stepped-up ethics training and just send all of our soldiers to Yale to study international law. We are clearly expecting them to make determinations/perform legal analyses in the middle of combat.
Great idea!! :(
Ryan S.
There is no justification for torture…. ever.
Tom
Not only to Yale to study international law but a rigorous course in military uniform regulations since we tend to shoot first when we see a loose ensignia patch. This is silliness.
Mac Buckets
As best as I can make out from the leftians, the solution is a nice hotel, an extra-fluffy prayer rug, and as speedy a release back to their terrorist training camps as we can manage. That’s the only way to get information out of these fanatical murderers!
Then, when the next terrorist attack hits, run the following campaign on how the Republicans can’t stop terrorism!
I think you hit on the winning solution — no more prisoners, lots more dead Al Qaeda on the battlefields. If that’s what the sensitive left wants, who are we to argue with their moral superiority?
Republican Statist
Hey, if the executive wants to change things like “interrogation” rules to protect us, I’m all for it. The more control the President has over, well, everything, the better off and safer we are.
jg
Considering 15 of the 19 hijackers thought it was a simple hijack mission, not a suicide mission, exactly what good comes from torturing the average AQ asshole to get info? He probably doesn’t have any.
LITBMueller
That’s an interesting legal puzzle, Al, but you lose me here:
Our troops are largely being attacked by Iraqis (largely Sunni) in Iraq, and Taliban-supporting Afghanis in Afghanistan – not members of Al Qaeda. So, if American troops capture an insurgent Iraqi, the solution to your legal puzzle is clear – he should be prosecuted/tortured/whatever by Iraqis under Iraqi law.
It is the fact that we have failed to establish any sort of stable, permanent government with a fully functioning police and judicial system that has put us in a legal conundrum when it comes with how to treat detained insurgents.
As for captured AQ guys being held at Guantanamo and elsewhere, personally, I do not have a problem with capturing and holding them as enemy combatants – as long as the purpose is to hold them for only a period of time before they are either put on trial or released. Such men have committed crimes against us, and should be brought to justice, not just locked up in some secret prison for all eternity. That sounds a little too Soviet Union-like for me.
Llelldorin
The only reason that captured AQ members are “prisoners of war” is because this administration insists that they are.
If they’re genuinely unlawful combattants, then they’re just captured civilian criminals. Put them on trial, convict them (conspiring to commit acts of terrorism must be some sort of crime, yes?), and throw them into prison.
Remember, the ONLY reason that we’re pretending AQ members are POWs is because the Bush administration wants to keep them out of the Article III courts. When the system is working as it was designed to, everyone is either a POW covered by the Geneva conventions or a civilian criminal.
The Other Steve
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm
This is from the Geneva Conventions. 2d seems to indicate that these guys are not Mercenaries, because they are US nationals.
That’s an interesting question. I think most regard them as Mercs. The regular army seems to feel that way, and they act like Mercs. But the conventions seems to feel they are part of the US armed forces. Interesting… I wonder if this wasn’t put in there to prevent countries from designating their militaries as mercs so they didn’t have to abide by the conventions regard for human rights?
srv
They wouldn’t be EPW’s if they were considered members of a terrorist/criminal organization in the first place. But this is a pseudo-“war” and 9/11 was not a “crime”.
tomaig
“we tend to shoot first when we see a loose ensignia patch.”
Really? So the U.S. troops are a bunch of trigger-happy hot heads who shoot at the first sign of loose Insignia? You reached this conclusion…how?
” This is silliness”
No, it’s a moronic libel of the U.S. military by a sophomoric little contestant in one of liberalism’s favorite games – the “No-I-hate-the-murdering-warbots-more-than-YOU-do!” variation on the dozens….
The Other Steve
My god, you have it down.
That’s exactly what the left wants, to have Hilton build prisoner of war camps with spas and massage parlours.
Obviously. Why didn’t I think of that before?
tBone
Spoop: the raw material used in spoofing. A noxious, highly-distilled blend of high-grade bullshit and 200-proof Kool-Aid. Is often excreted by garden-variety wingnuts in addition to actual spoofers.
Stop spooping on the thread, Mac.
Al Maviva
Well, LitB, that’s kind of my point. *We cannot put them on trial.* It is illegal under the Geneva Conventions, and if they did not commit some particular criminal act either within U.S. court jurisdiction, or some act that had an effect within the U.S. (thereby bringing them into U.S. jurisdiction) then it is illegal by our laws, not to mention extralegal under the Conventions. If they are EPW, then they cannot be tried, except for war crimes (and merely killing American troops isn’t a war crime) or for disciplinary infractions while in captivity.
Moreover, as for non-AQ insurgents, I’m pretty sure that if they fall within EPW coverage, as is being urged, I’m positive that we cannot turn them over to the Iraqis, based on what I’ve read about how the Iraqi interior ministry treats them, i.e. there’s more than a substantial likelihood of torture.
I’m not saying we should do any one thing or another here, just raising the point that if you insist that they are covered under the Conventions, it carries with it certain duties, and that we cannot hold the Conventions applicable to them a little bit here, but not at all over there. Adding to the absurdity, under the Fourth Convention (which we have not ratified but which is urged on us) we cannot hold captured AQ or insurgents if they are not classified as EPW – the whole of the world being divided into EPW (and other military ancillaries) and civilians. So if they aren’t EPW, well, then they are civilians who must be released, or interned in a third party neutral nation.
The only legally viable policy, near as I can figure it, must be catch and release. Anything else is illegal.
chopper
yep, that’s us leftists alright. cause if you’re against torture, you must be for free hotels and letting people go.
seriously, this lousy false dichotomy, this is what you’re going with? good luck with that one.
LITBMueller
Mac, seriously, dude. Lay off the 24. Jack Bauer is a fictional character.
Do you really think that captured insurgents all carry vital information regarding all the details of the insurgency? That they can be tortured, the info extracted, and the “war” “won”? If “enhanced interrogation techniques” have been used all along, they don’t seem to be working all that well, do they?
The Iraqi insurgency is not some sort of well-organized, country-wide effort that can be uncovered by hooking up detainees genitals to car batteries. Similarly, only the high-level AQ guys know operational details. For example, the guy flying one 9/11 airliner likely had no fucking idea what else was happening that day. Such secrecy and compartmentalization is mandatory for any group then intends to be effective.
canuckistani
How about non-coercive interrogation? You know, offer them a cigarette, ask them about their lives, get to understand them and maybe get some real useful information out of them, instead of whatever batshit things they can cook up to get off the waterboard?
Well, you know, you are claiming it is a war. Killing your soldiers is what the enemy is supposed to do; what we call a legitimate military target. When you’re too weak to face the enemy in line of battle,you resort to guerilla tactics; something every student of American Revolutionary history should be aware of. When you catch them killing civilians, you haul them before the International War Crimes Commission and get them locked away for life. When you catch them attacking soldiers, you send them to POW camp until the war is over, then you release them. You know, like civilized countries do.
LITBMueller
Mac, lets consider the highest-level AQ guy we have: Khalid Shaik Muhammed. He planned 9/11 and, until recently, was being held in Eastern Europe as an “unlawful combatant.” In other words, Geneva does not apply.
If there is anybody that should be tried for 9/11, next to OBL himself, its KSM. Yet, he is being held, possibly forever. By this point we likely have gotten everything we are ever gonna get outta him.
So, why did we have to watch Moussaui get put on trial, but not Muhammed? We CAN try him, Mac. He would come under US jurisdiction if he was charged as being part of a conspiracy to commit a crime on US soil – namely, 9/11. And, since he is an unlawful combatant, Geneva restrictions would not apply.
So…why no trial? Likely because we tortured him, which means any attempt to prosecute him would be tossed before the ink was dry on the USDA’s first brief.
And, frankly, how do you or I even know that KSM ISN’T being given a nice warm cell with three square meals a day because he cooperated? We don’t. All we know is that no public form of justice will be done to KSM for the crime he committed.
DecidedFenceSitter
Or you know, we could try and work within the system to change the Geneva conventions to take into account the changing circumstances.
Rather than monolaterally saying, “FUCK YOU.”
Cyrus
Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the same principle exist in the civilian legal system? Not with the same language, of course. But coercive interrogation is not allowed, and if it is used, any results cannot be used in a court. Both for ethical reasons (to protect the suspects from corrupt or just overzealous police) and for practical reasons (you get less reliable information that way).
And yet despite this prohibition on coercion, police still do get confessions and tips all the time. They use the good cop/bad cop routine, but unlike at Abu Ghraib, the bad cop doesn’t REALLY break the suspect’s bones. They let the suspect stew in his own fear in an interrogation room for two or three hours, which is unlike Gitmo, where at least one suspect stewed in his own shit in a 40-degree cell for two or three days. They bargain with the suspects to get the bigger targets, but they offer those suspects positive incentives to be helpful rather than just “if you don’t, we’ll shoot your family.” * Believe it or not, Al, there is a middle ground between “catch and release” and “off with their heads!”
Waitaminit — I don’t believe I wrote all that before I realized what a dumb question this was. First of all, Al apparently still believes that torture is effective. Or maybe that it’s not effective, but, you know, what else can you do? I mean, I certainly can’t imagine any other way to get someone to talk, it’s just too tough, right? So while we wait, we might as well torture them and see what happens.
But maybe more importantly, is he unaware of the many torture victims that demonstrably had nothing to do with terrorism? The one that I can always remember for some reason is that guy with the hood on his head and electrodes on his arms in the famous picture (he was in Abu Ghraib for stealing a car), but he’s far from the only one. Laws against torture don’t exist to protect a zealot caught in the act of setting a ticking-nuclear-time-poison-gas-bomb. They exist because once torture is officially allowed and accepted in contexts like that, it stretches very quickly to alleged car thieves and suspected murderers and people picked up in wide sweeps. I’m not making a slippery slope argument here, that’s exactly what fucking happened in Abu Ghraib. Torturing terrorists is almost a side issue. A, to use the buzzword so popular around here, jackalope.
(* The first two were examples I remembered from the news, but yes, the third was made up — never happened, as far as I know, don’t panic.)
Perry Como
Look, after this thread, no matter where you stand on statism, no more ridiculing the ‘absurd’ slippery slope arguments coming from the opponents of unrestrained Executive power.
Bruce Moomaw
Al Malviva: “How can interrogation in captivity, at the hands of a chap sitting in front of two armed military police, maybe with a war dog, be anything other than coercive? It is a polite legal fiction if you insist that questioning at the tip of a gun barrel is not coercive. Practically, I can’t imagine more coercive circumstances.”
Al, for God’s sake, that applies to ANY captured POWs. The most interesting thing about this whole mess has been that — just because the US was attacked on the mainland for the first time in two centuries and we lost 3000 people — a huge number of Americans think this somehow entitles us to do things to captured enemy entirely different from what, say, Britain and France did to captured Germans during WW II, although they lost tremendously more civilians from those attacks than we have. After all, we’re AMERICANS! How DARE anyone do anything to us?! Don’t they know we’re PRIVILEGED beyond all those other nations?
“Sorry this is long, but captured AQ are striking me more and more as a Chinese thumb puzzle, and the more we pull on it, the worse the situation gets.”
Yes, it’s a new kind of situation and (in cases where they really ARE enemy combatants, rather than innocents caught up in our sweeps) they do require a new kind of handling and new legal mechanisms to try to handle the situation as well as possible — including, probably, very long delays before their release. So how the hell does that justify torturing them, which is an entirely different subject? And, for that matter, why hasn’t this administration gotten off its duff and set to work to start defining proper new legal procedures to try to deal with this new situation we’re in? (But then, if they did that, they wouldn’t be this administration — as we all know by now. There are times when I think we’re all stuck in an “Outer Limits” rerun and the top officials in our government have all been possessed by evil aliens.)
Zifnab
First off, the Nuremberg Trials are a classic case of bringing war criminals to justice. Here we have a collection of murderers, rapists, torturers, and assorted war profiteers who were brought to justice in a legal and satisfactory setting. They weren’t tortured or summarily executed by the invading military and they weren’t denied the civil rights of every other German citizen, and they all still got what they deserved.
Second off, the insurgents we catch certainly can be tried under the courts within the country of their capture. I’m confident Iraq has laws against car bombings, drive by shootings, throwing handgrenades in a crowded theater, and conspiracy to commit terrorism. How hard is it to lock these guys in jail and just try them like normal criminals?
I’m just possing a hypothetical. Perhaps such systems would be entirely unworkable for one reason or another. But they seem a sight better to try than having private contractors in the military pile them up in human sex pyramids and taking video footage for fun.
Al Maviva
Where did I justify torture? Could you please show me where I was justifying torture?
I referred solely to the holding and interrogation of captured AQ and non-AQ insurgents. To reiterate: I think holding captured AQ or captured insurgents at all is illegal, as something not provided for and outside of the Geneva Conventions, and likewise trial is precluded. I cannot conceive of how a warcrimes trial could be conducted, unless “Playa Hatin’ tha U.S.” is now a war crime. Where’s the genocide here? Until a substantial chunk of westerners have been liquidated, or some crimes against humanity have been committed, it’s just resistance to U.S. cultural hegemony as far as I’m concerned. Justices Jackson and Frankfurter had some choice words about the abuse of warcrimes trials following Nuremburg and how victor’s justice basically craps on due process rights of the accused, as I recall.
I also believe that given the circumstances, interrogation is illegal and amounts to torture. You can compare it to police interrogation, but U.S. police routinely threaten, harshly question and otherwise coerce confessions out of people, in spite of court willingness to look the other way. Screaming at somebody is coercion. True, the cops can’t beat a confession out of somebody any more, but they sure can yell it out of them, and threaten them with life in prison, or telling other prisoners that the suspect is a snitch. How is that not coercive? “Well, what about asking nicely?” That’s a bogus line of reasoning too. When you are staring down the barrel of a gun, it doesn’t matter how nice the person on the other side is asking, you are being coerced. The other guy still has the gun! The threats of rendition and secret prisons and Gitmo are also hanging over the detainees’ heads. There’s no way a reasonable person would look at any kind of questioning as being anything other than coercive.
My point is if we’re going to apply the Conventions, we have to apply the Conventions as they are and take whatever the consequences of the decision are. We can’t pick and choose little bits then arbitarily assign subjective, special meanings to the terms. It ain’t a buffet. Taking the narrow legalistic approach is exactly what the Administration stands accused of here.
So I’ll reiterate, where in there, other than in your fevered imagination, did you read me making a case for torture?
Gold Star for Robot Boy
Don’t be an asshole, asshole.
yet another jeff
Regarding Abu Ghraib…here’s a piece I wrote for a radio show, what was it…2004?
Announcer : Warning! The following commercial is for adults only! “Guards Gone Wild” just got wilder! “Guards Gone Wild at Abu Ghraib!” Our cameras captured real prisoners, low ranking personnel, Military Police – unbuttoned and uncensored!
Voice: You call that a pyramid?! Do it again…but…er…more naked this time…and bark louder!
Prisoners: Woof! Woof!
Announcer: You won’t believe what happens when we leave the guards unsupervised and let them turn the cameras on!
Voice: Well, it ain’t Tijuana, boys, and we ain’t got no donkey lady, but we can saddle this old lady up and go for a ride…giddy up, ya ol’ donkey!
Group of voices: Wooo!
Announcer: And coed naked twister with the prisoners, what crazy things will they think of next?
Voice: Hey, you ain’t never heard of the Stanford Experiment, have ya? Good, put this hood on while I hook these here wires to yer nipples, heh, if this wasn’t radio, we’d have to blur out all yer naked genitals…yep. Now, these here wires are running to some car batteries…now I hope you don’t answer any of our questions wrong!
Announcer: You’ll also get this bonus video of rightwing pundits casting blame! They blame everyone! Gays, Quentin Tarantino, porn, feminism, and women in the military!
Pundit: I’m a right wing pundit, and I blame moral relativism, the Clintons, gays AND gay marriage, Quentin Tarantino, porn, the Clintons, feminism, and women in the military! I mean, Iraqi culture is just different, besides, it’s better treatment than they’d get in an A-rab prison. They don’t see things how we do…damn savages need to be ruled with an iron fist…but not like Saddam’s..no, an Iron Fist of Freedom! Anyone that says different is just spouting loony left moral relativism, but what do you expect when they still believe the Clintons. (paper shuffling sound) Hmmm…lost track…did I blame the Clintons? I forget…oh…and society…and a lack of family values…and…besides, it’s not any worse than a fraternity hazing, granted, the fraternities that did that were suspended and arrests were made, but my point still stands! I blame Hillary, Bill, Chelsea, and Socks! Damn feline-nazi cat.
Announcer: Prison guards, untrained and untamed! Order today or we’ll shove a chemical light stick up your ass and ride you like a donkey!
Davebo
John,
Perhaps you’d be wise to just avoid the chest thumpers at RedState. You do realize that these pathetic apologists are today blaming you and Katie Couric for our setbacks in Iraq?
These folks aren’t Americans, they’re cowards and excuse makers. The last thing they’ll ever do is accept personal responsibility for supporting this horrific administration and political party. They have zero credibility with the tiny sliver of the electorate that is even aware they exist and their blog is an echo chamber of ignorance and denial.
Al Maviva
That is categorically incorrect. We are not permitted, under U.S. law encoding the Anti-Torture Convention, to put somebody in U.S. control into a situation where their torture is imminent, per 18 U.S.C. 2340, 2340A. This would forbid handing over detainees to the Iraqis, where it is pretty clear they will be tortured. Knowing what the Iraqi interior Ministry has inflicted on captured insurgents (and other people), it’s hard to believe that a handover of captured Sunni insurgents would be anything other than “knowing” placement of the individual in custody, into a situation where torture is imminent.
How do you figure that’s legal, Zifnab? I see it as a violation of CAT and US law.
Cyrus
You are complaining about an attempt to strengthen and codify restrictions on torture. I really don’t see any way to read approval of either John’s post or the news story he links to in your original comment. The last sentence of John’s post, from something he linked to approvingly:
The first line of your quote: “Live by legalities, die by legalities.”
So, no, you don’t justify torture. You oppose attempts to control it, though. Or you WANT to oppose it, but you think doing so will get us killed (“die by legalities”). Or… something. I don’t know. Maybe you haven’t stated any opinion of John’s original post, or the article he linked to or the people who linked to him, or any specific comments. Maybe you just went on a general rant, a propos of nothing, to the effect that we can’t apply any part of the Geneva Conventions to the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism. I guess it’s probably an honest mistake, but if you wanted to avoid being accused of justifying torture, next time start your post with something like “This is off-topic, but…”
In the same way, because police do not have the resources to catch everyone who ever breaks the speed limit, we should use all those signs for scrap metal. What? You say that’s stupid? Well, the cops are picking and choosing when to enforce it, right?
And apparently there’s no difference whatsoever between coercion, psychological pressure, and persuasion. (For what it’s worth, I do realize that some instances of my police examples sometimes go over the line. But it’s ridiculous to argue that forbidding coercive interrogation prevents all interrogation, and if I’m mistaken about you arguing that, please enlighten me.)
Davebo
OK Al, now you can go back to defending rendition.
Some might notice the hypocrasy in that, but hey, you can ignore it and that’s what counts right?
Crank
Apparently the problem with my post is that it DIDN’T INCLUDE ENOUGH CAPITAL LETTERS AND EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!!!!
I offered up my basis for making the sort of reasoned distinctions that moral reasoning requires. You can do that, or you can keep mocking the entire concept of making distinctions. And you can make a treaty (a legal document, last I checked; the Lord didn’t hand down the Geneva Conventions on Mt. Sinai) the entire basis of your argument, and then argue that while the treaty is the be-all and end-all, actually paying attention to what the damn thing says and who it applies to is unimportant. This is like saying that something is bad because it is unconstitutional, and then argue that actually consulting the constitution to see what it says and who it applies to is BEYOND THE PALE OF CIVILIZED DISCOURSE!!!!!
Oh, and, in point of fact, they did try to kill me. And I did not like that, and would prefer it not be repeated.
Anderson
Maviva:
Not persuasive, if we lose the “war dog.” (What is a “war dog”? Is that one of those “dogs of war” that someone’s always saying we should let slip?) Obviously, “captivity” involves the use of force. We’re talking coercion, not just force. “Answer our questions, OR ELSE” is coercion.
Now, on the trial question, Maviva may have a point–I don’t know. Which is a great argument for the law-enforcement approach to terrorism. Treat these people like criminals, which includes extending Fourth/Eighth Amendment rights.
OTOH: Phil Carter agrees with you on contractors:
Which is pretty fucking funny, in a grim sort of way.
chopper
you know there’s a snarky answer to this point, something like “by that logic we can’t put them under our own control.”
RobertL
George Bush’s views about torture were known prior to the 2004 election and we re-elected him anyway. Bush said the election was the accountability moment and he was right. The torture debate is over and by re-electing Bush we Americans implicitly approved the black hood crowd. Let’s just remember, 3,000 people were killed on 9/11 and this was our reaction. Imagine what we would have done if New York and Washington had been carpet bombed as we did in Vietnam. So if the right wing torture enthusiasts want torture, then fine. You’ve got it. Let’s just stop whining about the brutalization of our POW’s in Vietnam. We’ve proven by our collective shoulder shrug at this president’s actions that we are no better.
Perry Como
Remind me again how many billion we spent to get rid of torture rooms in Iraq. The debt inflicted on my future grandchildren needs to hit home. Again.
delf
Interesting to read this post regarding the insanity within this administration and see it next to an ad for Ann Godless Coulter.
Or was that irony?
Al Maviva
No, I’m not defending torture, nor rendition, or anything else here. In fact, I’ll be happy to say I haven’t a pleasing policy solution to offer.
My point is simple. Our obsession with “legalizing” quite literally everthing, including the manner in which we conduct every single aspect of war and diplomacy, has backed us into a pretty neat corner. The only way out of it is to try to somehow get some international conventions and laws changed. Good luck on that when it’s the stated intent of 3/5ths of the security counsel to fuck us over but good, in the name of doing profitable business with mullahs and sheikhs. And good luck on changing U.S. code – I’m looking forward to the leadership the post-November Dem Congress will show on this issue. So much so, that I’m going to make popcorn.
Anderson’s idea is a a case in point.
Yeah, nice. That would carry with it due process rights. Meaning you can’t deny life or liberty without due process of law. Combat operations would have to be conducted per the Constitutional due process standard, which permits only a self defense/defense of others use of deadly force. In other words, no offensive military operations. No firing, until directly fired upon. Then there’s the question about how you get a warrant from a U.S. court to search a couple dozen houses in Ramadi. Or the standard of probable cause for seizing individuals, which will have to be developed frequently in the fog of war, where it’s common for two people laying on the ground 5 feet apart to have completely different factual accounts of what happened.
I’m sorry Anderson, that’s essentially a nutty idea. I give you all the credit in the world for thinking that overpaid, fat assed lawyers like myself can stop the GWOT. Sadly, neither practitioners, nor overpaid elderly political contributor fat assed lawyers, AKA judges, can make that happen. It’s wonderful that you think so highly of our priestly caste, but I’m afraid that your cargo-cult level of reverence for us and the law is misplaced. We do pretty good at allocating damages in a breach of contract case, and occasionally get it right in a tort or administrative law controversy, but I’m afraid our full arsenal of narrow legalisms isn’t going to be too helpful in solving existential questions. Law is a process, not an answer.
Matt
Al, you raise some interesting issues, but I don’t see that they’re entirely topical. I mean, the issue in question really doesn’t bear on whether or not we adhere to all tenets of the Convention, or the legal problems with attempting to do so. Rather, from what I’ve read of it, it’s a much simpler matter of adhering (or not, in this case) to a particular guideline, not because we consider ourselves bound in every case by the entire Convention, but because the ethical principles laid out in that part of the Convention are consistent with our own values. And of course, it’s the weakening of those values that concerns us.
John Redworth
I would be all for this if Paris Hilton was thrown in the mix in hopes someone shivs her during tennis lessons…
Zifnab
Wow. I suppose you got me there. We invade a country, errect a new government, and the governmental representatives go off and start torturing prisoners just as ruthlessly as… US Military Contractors. Hmmmm…. Funny that.
If you’re implying that we can’t turn US Military prisoners over to a government that we know will torture them, then we really are forced to run on a catch-and-release policy. Because under that logic we can’t even hold them ourselves.
So the only sane and rational solution at this point is to get the hell out of Iraq. Just leave. We’re done. We can’t arrest people and keep them and we can’t arrest them and give them to the government WE helped create, because we’re both torturers. We can’t stay, as 3 years in the country has already proven that we are incapable or at least unwilling to improve the situation.
TBone
As I scrolled through the posts above, I noticed one glaring similarity: most of you folks don’t have the slightest clue what it’s like to be in a combat zone or to fight against truly evil people. You pass your idealistic judgments from the safety of your comfy chairs and then hit the enter button just in time to catch the end of your favorite television show. You have no clue whatsoever what you’re talking about in regards to interrogation or “torture”, nor what really goes on in an interrogation booth. You believe that the actions of some idiot reservist Military Policemen (not interrogators by the way) are somehow the standard for interrogation operations throughout the military. And you believe that the only acceptable way to interrogate murderers and terrorists is to offer them a nice cup of tea and fellate them. Unfortunately you are naive and wrong.
There is a huge difference between the way true captured soldiers (POW’s or EPW’s) get treated and the way murdering terrorists get treated. POW’s get treated with respect and decency because we are respectful of the fact that they fought (or attempted to fight) honorably and will be released upon the end of hostilities. POWs act accordingly and are respectful to their captors for the most part. Have you heard ANY stories of Iraqi soldiers being abused in any way after captivity? I didn’t think so. Honor is payed with honor by American forces.
Terrorists/insurgents, on the other hand, do not act with honor as soldiers do. They behave like hardened criminals. When a hardened criminal is disobedient in ANY PENAL INSTITUTION IN AMERICA, he is handled with the force and violence necessary to reestablish order; probably with far more force than the majority of insurgent detainees were ever handled. Yet no one recognizes the right of the soldier to maintain this type of control when it comes to handling detainees. They are maligned and called “war criminals”. Why? We are forced to essentially play the role of policemen and a corrections officers, yet we are not given the SAME LATITUDE as corrections officers in the United States to deal with wild and violent offenders. Remember there are many more facets of detainee handling beyond interrogation.
As far as interrogation goes…why does everyone assume if an interrogator isn’t all nicey nice and smiles, that somehow it constitutes “torture”? That yelling at a detainee, or making him uncomfortable is somehow so incredibly evil? I agree that we shouldn’t be doing things like beating them with pipes or stuffing them in sleeping bags, but for crying out loud, the stuff you guys consider “torture” is ridiculous. Those men aren’t little girls, they are hardened men. Remember, lots of these guys were captured directly after incidents where they were ENGAGED IN KILLING AND MAIMING OTHER HUMAN BEINGS. I’m not just talking about engaging soldiers in combat, I’m talking about dragging people off of a bus and slaughtering them, or beheading them, or purposely blowing up innocent people. When they are captured they bite and spit and thrash. Do you expect the guards or interrogators to put them in a corner for a “time out”? Get real. If we get a little rough with them are we somehow going to take away their dignity or hurt their feelings? Hello!!! THEY JUST MURDERED PEOPLE, and we are going to hurt their feelings???? What is this logic? I’m seeing Mr. Rogers putting on his sweater now and watching the fucking train go round and round “Howdy Mr. Jihad, would you like to be my neighbor?” “Please be nice Mr. Murdering Jihad man.” “We Americans NEVER EVER do anything violent to anyone because that would be wrong.” They laugh at you in your face because you are WEAK. And some of you reading this are weak, aren’t you?
This is war. Violence and force is a component of war. Excess should NEVER be tolerated when it is done indiscriminately or for sadistic pleasure, like was the case with the Abu Ghraib idiots; but sometimes force is absolutely necessary to get things accomplished in war. You folks can’t possibly grasp that though, so grab a beer, martini, or you favorite joint and jump on the bash Bush and bash the military bandwagon…flailing away with all the idealism of naive school children who still believe in Santa Claus. All of you sweethearts really need is a few weeks on the road in Iraq to figure out that if you are weak, you die. Wake up children…there is a real world out there…and it isn’t going to be found in your living room. And you don’t rate to pass judgment on one single soldier until you have been there and done that. And yes, sometimes experience is the only way you are truly going to know that if you touch fire, you will get burned. I know fire is hot by experience, do you? Probably not.
Bruce Moomaw
Okey-doke, Crank: DO you think that the kinds of activity described by Cole in his statement above should be permitted? The Bush Administration does, and has ordered its military to follow suit — which means that your statement on your blog that “unlawful combatants should be allowed no access at all to US courts” because the “courts-martial process” is adequate to handle any abuse of them is purest garbage. (For some more interesting informtion on just what the current military tribunal process is up to, under the morally inspiring direction of Rummy, see Kevin Drum’s Feb. 15 and 17 entries.)
Bruce Moomaw
Similar question to T-Bone, who says, “I agree that we shouldn’t be doing things like beating them with pipes or stuffing them in sleeping bags.” Well, that’s a start. Now how about the stuff Cole hit the ceiling about in his statement at the start of this thread? And, if it’s just being done by “some idiot reservist military policemen”, why did Michael Hayden flatly refuse to tell the Senate that waterboarding isn’t still an official interrogation technique during his confirmation hearings? Hm?
rachel
I was just thinking that, and wondering whether the insurgents would ever try using it as a justification like teh US has done.
chopper
thanks, TBONE, i’ll remember that next time an innocent cab driver is beaten to death during interrogation.
it’s okay cause he was just a ‘murdering terrorist.’
tBone
More spoop. Do you actually think anyone is going to read this and take you seriously?
What’s really funny is that John’s original post parodies your arguments perfectly, right down to the OVERUSE OF ALL CAPS!!
Steve
Even though no one at Gitmo has had a trial, even though none of them even had a military tribunal until recently, even though prosecutors from the military tribunals have resigned their jobs because they saw the proceedings as pure shams, wingnut bloggers somehow “know” that 99% of them were captured while standing over the bloody corpse of some innocent person.
And somehow, with their super-secret magic security clearances, the wingnut bloggers also know that any prisoner who was abused was simply acting disobedient and therefore had to be restrained.
It’s no wonder these people don’t enlist. It would be terrible if someone with their intimate knowledge of every detail of military operations were to fall into the hands of the enemy.
LITBMueller
That’s because criminals in penal institutions have been tried and found guilty. They are known as “convicts.”
That’s because you can’t treat a person who hasn’t had a trial or been found guilty yet the same as you would treat a convict. That’s why they are known as “detainees,” not “convicts.”
TBone
Steve, if you took the time to follow the link to my site you might see that, in fact, I did enlist in 1984 and have been serving ever since. I served in the first Gulf War, Bosnia, in the Middle East on three separate occasions prior to going twice to Operation Iraqi Freedom. I have personally dealt with Iraqi prisoners and with “detainees”, and have quite specific knowledge of what I talk about.
And a little bit of facts for you…suspected criminals awaiting trial are incarcerated in jails until trial for a period of time until they get bail (or not), and are subject to the same disciplinary measures as other “convicts”. Regardless, detainees in Iraq and Guantanamo do not have US Constitutional rights whether you would like them to have them or not. They will get their time “in court” at some point or they will be released (as some already have); and yes, the detainees I have been involved with have been engaged in violent activities (with few exceptions) or have been in possession of bombs or other terrorist related evidence. We even caught two guys in the act of planting an IED once; I guess they were just innocent gardeners who happened upon some bombs huh? And I guess we needed to treat them all nicey nice until their day in court, right? Once again you folks have fallen for the anti-administration propaganda hook, line, and sinker; choosing to believe some jackass in the press who listened to some Iraqi with an axe to grind. I even had one dirty Iraqi make the accusation that US troops stole 60,000 US Dollars out of his house during a raid. That dude lived in a shack, but he claimed to have tens of thousands of US Dollars stashed under the mattress, yeah right. Like I said, you need a few weeks on the road in Iraq to bring you to the light.
Crank
Bruce Moomaw – My point about the courts-martial process is that it exists to hold accountable soldiers doing things that are not authorized. You are apparently interested in allowing lawsuits to challenge conduct that is authorized. I’m not. I believe that the president is accountable for what he authorizes, but that accountability comes at the voting booth.
Bruce Moomaw
Ah. So you don’t believe that any President should ever be impeached, or that either Congress and the courts should ever have any power to block any of his actions? And your “accountability at the voting booth” principle applies to a President who is no longer going to run for reelection, who is therefore presumably free to do anything he chooses to anybody? (Lest we forget, Bush himself informed us with a straight face, the day after his reelection, that he regarded his reelection as full justification for every single one of his actions during his first term, whether the public actually favored those particular actions or not.)
You appear to have gotten that law degree you boast about out of a cereal box.