An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
« Veterans’ Prayers: A Hidden Part of Warrior Life: Veterans Day 2007
Tom Tancredo Ad, An X-ray of His Mind Will Soon Be on TV: A Political Campaign Ad Analysis »
A Clue
Many conservatives are adamantly declaring that water-boarding is not torture. The Attorney General can’t decide one way or the other. You want to know who could figure it out? The Mississippi Supreme Court. In 1922. Overturning the conviction of a Black man charged with killing a White guy, whose confession was gotten through “the water cure” (as water-boarding was known at the time).
It’s always a treat to dip beneath Jim Crow Mississippi on the scales of justice.
20 Responses to “A Clue”
Let’s not forget the Japanese War Crimes Trials. The state of Texas in the 1980′s or 1990′s sent a sheriff to prison for “water torture and extortion”. Seems there is quite a bit of precedent, even in W’s own state.
There goes the Pat Buchanan and Republican meme/narrative that it isn’t torture or a US crime.
The site you linked to also had this about water torture during the Spanish Spanish Inquisition( waterboarding — or toca):
http://www.isthatlegal.org/archives/2007/10/waterboarding_t.html
Let me state empatically……….I DO NOT BELIEVE IN TORTURE nor condone waterboarding.
That said.
The issue seems to revolve around Citizens of the USA being denied due process and cruel and inhuman punishment. Given the fact that waterboarding would fall under these tenets I should suspect that an American citizen being subjected to this procedure would be denied due process and that these methods would deny American citizens their constitutional rights.
However we are talking about foreign citizens on foreign soil carried out by the military in times of war. At issue seems to be the want…….desire to afford foreign nationals at war with the USA the same constitutional rights as is afforded American soldiers.
Should enemies of the USA at war with us in a foreign land be afforded CONSTITUTIONAL Rights? That seems to be the question.
This is the heart of the matter. These particular matters have not been defined and until it is defined and ruled upon and perhaps supreme court decisions handed down in regard to this then it would be very hard for any Attorney General to honestly answer the question.
Is waterboarding unconstitutional? Yes.
If you apply those standards to American citizens. There is precedent. However where is the precedent for soldiers at war on foreign soil?
I don’t think anyone suggests that the Constitution universally applies outside our borders, though it would be nice to dream of a world in which we treated our enemies well.
Right now, I’d settle for following the Geneva Convention.
“Many conservatives are adamantly declaring that water-boarding is not torture.”
The irony of that statement is glaring given the attempts of the “conservatives” to position themselves as the family values option… a guise I never bought for a moment anyway. So just how disconnected from ones humanity is a person willing to get in order to support their party?
It’s not the Geneva Convention it’s the Geneva Conventions. There are 4 treaties that came out of the
Waterboarding as it is assumued to occor does not violate the articals of the Geneva Convention that the US affermed.
Somebody says:
The point is the practice of waterboarding or any other tortures have been illegal or a crime for hundreds of years here and throughout the West. Are rape, murder or grand larceny not crimes in a war zone. The issue is US behaviour and obeying US laws, not an “evil enemy” or “any enemy”.
sorry here’s what I was trying to post.
It’s not the Geneva Convention it’s the Geneva Conventions. There are 4 treaties that came out of the Conventions and of course the three protocols (hey I didn’t name them) that amended them. The one that would be at issue here would be protocol I from 1977, which was never ratified by the US. It was never ratified for two very good reasons. It (the protocol) basically states that a combatant no longer had to follow the “laws of war” to be entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions. This removed some of the incentive to obey the laws of war and makes it more likely that lawful militarizes could be attack by people posing/hiding as civilians, it also puts civilians at risk from the military responding to the threats of the illegal attacks.
Waterboarding as it is assumed to occur does not violate the articles of the Geneva Convention that the US affirmed.
rudi
Summarily shooting someone in the head is illegal in the “West” also. That does not prevent it from being absolutely legal according to laws of war in some cases. As currently written there is much room for waterboarding to be considered legal when used against illegal combatants. That you think it wrong does not suddenly make it illegal, at best, just wrong.
The US constitution definitely applies to non-US citizens, at least with regards to the rights in question (see, e.g., Plyer v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)). Whether it applies to non-US citizens outside the physical boundaries of the US is somewhat more unsettled, although court precedent is moving in that direction. As to Geneva, the US has signed but not ratified Protocol I (which is the relevant portion) — however, Protocol I is at this point considered customary international law. And finally, the law that outlaws torture (18 USC 2340) explicitly applies to activity outside the US, and the US has jurisdiction if the offender is either a US national or present in our borders.
All of this, though, I’d submit is beside the point. The point is not whether or not water boarding is “technically” illegal. It’s that we’re seriously arguing over whether to sanction a procedure that struck Jim Crow justices as too barbaric to use on southern Blacks. That’s appalling.
Here’s an idea, if you stuck with the bit about it just being wrong you might get farther. “Hinting” that anyone who disagrees is next door to the KKK, or spouting excessive legal jargon, comparing waterboading to rape, murder or grand larceny, ect, ect turns off many who might be willing to think on the subject.
I don’t feel I perpetually have to be in “conciliatory persuasion” mode. Sometimes, even “moderates” are allowed to call them as they see them (or as they are). In this case, we’re talking about a significant portion of a major political party literally trumpeting a procedure deemed too inhumane for Jim Crow Mississippians to use on Black suspected criminals. When, if not now, do I have your permission to speak candidly?
The deciding factor for me is not he legal status of torure like waterboarding. That’s only important for areguing the case at times ehn legalese is useful.
Nor does it matter what practices other coundties condone.
This is about us, as a nation. The practise is barbaric and we should not be a barbaric nation. On top of that, it just doesn’t work unless it works as a recruiting tool for our enemies.
We want to be leaders? Who is going to take the US seripusly on human rights issues if this is what we do.?
We want to be leaders? Who is going to take the US seripusly on human rights issues if this is what we do.?
Most everyone will continue to take us seriously. You have to remember. The people who you are bemoaning no longer love us are the ones we sent our spies to their nations to learn how to interrogate prisoners in order to get quicker and better information.
Secondly Abu Gharib was determined to be the night shift run by poorly trained guardsmen who were NOT under orders and the Women general in charge lost her job because she did not even know this was going on under her charge. Secondly the prisoners under their charge had zero useful information. This was the conclusions reached by 12 different investigative panels commissioned to investigate this scandal.
Guantanamo bay is following the Geneva conventions. Did you know that the Geneva Conventions states that it is illegal to proffer aid and comfort to the enemy if that aid and comfort is to entice the detainees to talk?
Well guess what the purpose of Guantanamo is? You got it………to make the detainees talk. Offering them an extra blanket to keep them warmer is against the Geneva Conventions.
Torture is not the norm for America. Everyone understands that. However this buzz about the possibility of torture has the terrorists rethinking their positions. No longer being captured by the USA means a stay at the Ritz with all the caviar they can stand. It might, could, possibly be an uncomfortable experience.
Perhaps if we did that to all our prisons mabye we would not have so many people in jail. AS my wife says if Soldiers can sleep in tents in the deserts of Iraq eating c rations then our prisoners dont have to have Air Conditioning and TV and eat hot meals 3 times a day.
So lets see- the party of family values votes against expanding subsidized health care to the children of working class families, ok’s waterboarding, and is a proponent of the death penalty. We are already descending down the slippery slope under their rule—- Giuliani has made it clear that we will continue the slide away from our core values if he is elected. Just what is it that makes our country so great again?
The family values crowd and it’s pundits are in favor of tearing up(hyperbole) the Constitution and civil liberties over rumors and absurd threats.
1) A Phillipino(sp) hack writes a book hinting that internment isn’t so bad.
2) A ugly Blond hack writes a book praising Joe McCarthy.
3) Weldon gives us the false threat of “suit case” nukes and the “24″ narrative of a ticking bomb becomes a sad cliche(sp). Even though the technology of the “suit case nuke” is a phony story.
4) Torture and rendition become acceptable, even after hundreds of years when they were crimes.
5) Nail files and liquids are now, or were, banned from airplanes based on false stories and chemistry. The “liquid bomb” story even though the actual physical explosive is a SOLID. The liquid components are a PRECURSOR, not the actual explosive.
Will the Right also welcome martial law for regions of the US based on rumor? Until Dearbornistan actually riots or is in revolt, stop the fear mongering. Dearborn saw real martial law in 1967, until a similar situation occurs, leave my civil liberties alone.
“The issue seems to revolve around Citizens of the USA being denied due process and cruel and inhuman punishment.”
Somebody, thats your starting premise and its not valid. The issues revolves around the fact that its torture and we are against torture even on non-citizens who aren’t covered by our Constitution. We signed an anti-torture agreement with the international community long ago and now we are violating it in spirit and letter. Its not a purely Constitutional issue.
Somebody, thats your starting premise and its not valid.
Its very valid or else…….President Bush would now be impeached and in prison. He is not.
911 changed it all. Pakistan potentially falling into Taliban type hands with fingers on the nuke buttons changed that. Iran actively seeking nukes changed that. Oil zooming to 100 dollars a barrel changed that. The continual revelations and arrests of terrorists who would inflict mass carnage changed that. The subway bombings in England Changed that. Gas in the subway in Japan Changed that.
Times they are a changing………..join the 21st century and get over it. Gosh mabey even help us defeat this terrorism and mabey we can get back to living in peace……..right now their are millions of terrorists who dont want you to live in peace. They would love to take away your rights. The responsibility of the government is to PROTECT YOU from them. That is what they are doing. You might not like their choices, yet they are doing what they are constitutionally bound to do………..
Protect American Citizens from harm both domestically and abroad.
Herein lies the crux of my argument………along the way in protecting you in a NEW TYPE OF WAR they might make mistakes, need some reminding, need some firm head shakes, need a few supreme court rulings but thru it all the President and VP and the Senate and the Congress of this fine nation take seriously their responsibility to protect and defend the United States of America. In the process if they step on a few toes to save lives they are going to do it.
I commend them for their efforts…..Im sorry most at TMV want to impeach a president that has dedicated his life and ruined his legacy so he can defend Americans from more 911′s.
Somebody-
” or else…….President Bush would now be impeached and in prison. He is not.”
Bad reasoning.
For starters, all the necessary documents are off limits as a matter of ‘national security’ Bush is an exemplar of how the law can be twisted to hide from accountabllity. That’s a long lasitng Cheney plan come to fruitionn. I shudder to think how subsequent presidents will use this precedent.
For seconds, one does have to worry about the effects of an impeachment in a time os multiple international crises. Unlike Bush’s executive branch, some of us do continue to care more about the country than about politics.
———–
“their responsibility to protect and defend the United States of America. ”
It’s impossible to completely protect and defend against another attack, no matter what is done.
To claim to be doing so is a bald faced political fiction
Whatever can be done, can’t be done by using torture. Every Western country that has tried it has come to the conclusion. Tortire is ineffective and counter-productive to a large enough extent as to make the practice a pure act of revenge.
In the meantime, we are losing the very essence of who we are, and for nothing. To become a nation of barbarians is not an option, and excuses are still just excuses.
Bush’s intentions might have been good, but you know what they say about the road to hell. We started on the road, and I just hope we have the good sense to get off before it’s too late.
Actually, that’s not even the real issue behind the most forceful and “deeply ashamed and offended” criticism.
Of course it’s torture and it’s wrong, but stop the excessive “highly principled” prose (ironic, given the frequent sources), simply realize that yes, it is an excess of the Bush administration, and get over it.
But that’s difficult because the real reason for the harshest criticism (and ridiculous obscession with this subject long after it was newsworthy) isn’t that it’s torture. It’s that the Bush administration has been doing it. It’s not about “principles,” but instead about Bush and Bush-hatred.