Comments on: ‘I’m Ashamed We’re Even Having This Discussion’

By: JSpencer

JSpencer — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 04:17:37 +0000

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.

By: GeorgeSorwell

GeorgeSorwell — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 03:33:22 +0000

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.

By: EEllis

EEllis — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 01:53:17 +0000

They are not members of armed forces. See Article II

By: mikkel

mikkel — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 01:45:43 +0000

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.

By: EEllis

EEllis — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 01:19:10 +0000

“Persons taking no active part in the hostilities”

Bit of a sticking point for me.

By: mikkel

mikkel — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 00:36:10 +0000

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.

By: EEllis

EEllis — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 00:22:27 +0000

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.

By: mikkel

mikkel — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 23:39:07 +0000

Also I would like to add that differing “interpretations” of laws is something that 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.

By: mikkel

mikkel — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 23:31:54 +0000

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.

By: EEllis

EEllis — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 23:07:31 +0000

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.