An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

‘I’m Ashamed We’re Even Having This Discussion’

In my introductory post I commented that I would mostly avoid political topics, but this one is too great to ignore. I just finished watching the documentary Torturing Democracy that greatly details our detainee program over the last 7 years. It hits all the points poignantly: the direct authorization from the highest levels; the warnings about legality from both civilian and military sources; the fact that most detainees had questionable involvement with Al Qaeda; and most damning of all, that the “programs” were strongly patterned on totalitarian regimes’ propaganda/punishment techniques instead of accurate intelligence gathering. I strongly recommend that everyone takes the time to watch the program, as the interviews are almost exclusively with people that were in high enough levels of government to have immense credibility and several of them were involved in trying to stop the problem.

I have kept relatively abreast of the information that was known about our policies, but I was blown away by the amount of direct evidence that the documentary presented that tied our highest offices to them…or at the very least, seeing the full extent over the course of an hour hit home in a way that years of leaks never did. It reminded me that the first change we need moving forward is to open up a tribunal and arrest those directly connected no matter how high or protected they are in the current Administration. There is no doubt that these people committed crimes that are directly against both domestic and international law and did so with full knowledge and multiple warnings. We have an obligation to investigate and prosecute breaches of the Geneva Convention as detailed in Art. 192.

“Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons over for trial to another High Contracting Party concerned, provided such High Contracting Party has made out a prima facie case.

This is not about political motives, nor is it about “policy disagreements” as some argue. It is about the rule of law and has implications not only for our servicemen and women but the relationship between the Executive and Legislative Branches for decades to come. It is also about our standing in the world amongst both allies and enemies.

I have many friends from other countries, some of which have experienced the horrors of totalitarianism and war first hand. They are in near unanimous agreement that the United States has failed to use its power wisely and think that their home countries need to do more to stand up to us. And these are all people that are moderates, view themselves as allies and really like the US — sometimes more than their home country! What is interesting is that most of them don’t hold our transgressions against us, they hold our inability to admit or correct our mistakes against us. It is not the “far left” criticism that the United States does more harm than good (or that we are worse than other countries), it is that we have too much power and cannot keep our own house in order. With the economic crisis and forthcoming global shift in power, this is not merely a moral issue, it is one that will help determine our future standing in the world. Even now many countries, including some of our most stalwart allies, are holding conferences we are not invited to and openly discussing new regimes that would lower our influence on the rest of the world.

If we have any hope to maintain American Exceptionalism, we must prove that we can shed light on our own problems and resolve them justly. As they say in the documentary, we used techniques that SERE trained soldiers as needing to overcome and that were employed by “Totalitarian evil nation[s] with a complete disregard for human rights and the Geneva Convention.”
Or as Richard Armitage put it, “I’m ashamed we’re even having this discussion.” It is quite a stain on our nation’s history and as Shaun and Dr. E point out, one not confined to our military or intelligence services.

  • EEllis
    The problem with some of the statements is that none of the combatants are covered by anything ratified by the US. They are not covered by the sections of the Geneva Convention that was approved by the US so we did not, could not, violate the GC in regard to any action concerning them. Now that is not saying domestic laws weren't violated or the inherent immorality of torcher, but it is not a violation of the laws of war. If there was direct violations of domestic law, re Nixon, then so be it. However if it is a difference in interpretation of the law, the the calls for prosecution are futile and counterproductive. Complaints about the activities are probably most productive when framed as a moral issue and the type of country we want the US to be.
  • mikkel
    Even if you use the strictest definition there is no way that the vast majority of the captives didn't fall under Geneva protections. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, the people were captured in a way where they would be afforded Article III protections at the very least. Please watch the video, as they make it clear that multiple legal sources across both intelligence and military branches determined that they broke international law.
  • mikkel
    Also I would like to add that differing "interpretations" of laws is something that is resolved through lawsuits and prosecutions. Even if you want to argue that there is a valid interpretation of our obligations, that is something that should be determined in court. Obviously when the vast majority of civilian and military lawyers involved say that laws were breached and the primary counterargument was just a couple of guys in the executive branch that said the President isn't bound by any law, that should be enough burden to bring charges.
  • EEllis
    I don't think they, the majority at the very least, would be cover by the Article III protections. They just don't meet the requirements:
    that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
    that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance
    that of carrying arms openly;
    that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
    The protections for "civilians" would be covered by the fourth Geneva Convention that is unratified and unrecognized by the US. International law does indicate if a person isn't covered by one then they would be covered by the fourth convention but since it isn't recognized by the US it's a stretch to believe that we must adhere to it.

    As I said if it can be shown that laws were violated then go ahead. Personally I think it's a waste of time that will go nowhere. I also think the arguments about international law is a bad idea that weakens the moral case against those practices.
  • mikkel
    Those aren't the requirements for Article III protections, those are the requirements for POW Article II protections.

    Article III text, which as it notes the Administration (and subsequently the Supreme Court) affirmed for all detainees. The Administration has never claimed a right to torture, they have claimed that what they are doing isn't torture. Historically and by the letter of the law this claim has no basis. In this instance I feel that legal discussions is part of the moral claim, because of issues of basic dignity, and also honoring commitments we have agreed to. Plus not to get too academic, but most people operate on the legalistic realm of moral reasoning so I think it is important to bring that up strongly.
  • EEllis
    "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities"

    Bit of a sticking point for me.
  • mikkel
    Uh, right after that phrase is a comma, then "including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed 'hors de combat' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause." Unless you are arguing the Gitmo/Abu Ghraib were part of active hostility or you are arguing that they aren't "armed forces" at all.But again, both the Bush Administration and Supreme Court ruled they were covered under this Article so it's a bit of a moot point.
  • EEllis
    They are not members of armed forces. See Article II
  • GeorgeSorwell
    The question of whether it is a wise policy to torture is independent of the Geneva Convention.

    If that is the underlying question, the answer is, obviously, no.

    You're welcome.

    PS Feel free to argue otherwise. I'd love to read that.
  • JSpencer
    I agree with George... which goes straight to Mikkel's title about being ashamed we're even having this discussion. The only thing that's been more shocking to me than the USA being involved in torture is the great number of people who have been willing to rationalize it as somehow acceptable... which in turn makes me wonder when the country I once knew was taken over by sociopathic idiots.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC