An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Compromise In The Making On ‘Interrogation Techniques’
So wait… what kind of compromise could possibly be the result of this? How can there be a compromise regarding the Geneva Convention? There is no freaking compromise possible: treat prisoners, no matter what kind of disgusting creatures they are, according to ‘natural law’ c.q. ‘human rights’.
There are only two options: treating prisoners in a humane manner, or not. A compromise will automatically result in the latter.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
15 Responses to “Compromise In The Making On ‘Interrogation Techniques’”
What is your abbreviation c.q.?
The only way I could see a possible compromise would be the administration doing the compromising. Bush might still hold to his insistence on clarification of what constitutes dignified treatment, for example…but the only legitimate solution is one that gives that clarification without diluting the intent of the Geneva provisions. If that is watered down in any way, then it should be unacceptable to Congress, but if clarificatin just means stating the same general principles in more specific manner, then I see no problem with that.
There are days when I think you’re a troll, Michael.
Have you even read the Conventions? How can one defend one’s self against the charge of “inhumane treatment” when the accuser defines what constitutes “inhumane”? Only provide three meals a day? “Inhumane! We should have been provided bed-time snacks!” Questioned for more than an hour at a time? “Inhumane!”
Yes, there’s a line. But the Conventions do not provide it, or a means of discovering it.
Allegations of violations of the Conventions have become a common form of “lawfare”, and we’re losing. At least Bush seems to recognize that there’s a problem!
htom,
I agree with your points about interpretation of humane treatment. Without more specificity, it is impossible to protect our govt from charges that it is acting inhumanely.
However, Bush’s recent statements and posturing seem to indicate that he’s not trying to defend against frivolous accusations, but rather he seems to be defending some very questionable interrogation methods (waterboarding being the most serious). So, while I agree on the need for clarification, I would insist that it shouldn’t be clarification that seeks to make exceptions for the unacceptable.
Lets see, when the prisoners legs are crushed, and well, he’s dead, you’ve probably crossed the line.
htom, you can’t define “inhumane” literally, because that’s a definition that changes over time. Plus, any attempts to nail down a literal interpretation by the Bush administration opens up the door to other countries making their own interpretations. Maybe there are some things in Iran or Russia or Saudi Arabia that they see as “humane” that we would see as “inhumane”. Are you willing to tell U.S. soldiers that other countries, countries they may fight, can redefine what is “humane” or not?
This whole debate sickens me. To think that the U.S. is doing anything remotely close to torture is disgusting. Instead of redefining torture, why doesn’t Bush simply videotape all interrogations at Gitmo and around the world? That way, when these alleged terrorists are brought to trial (um, that is the whole point of holding people and interrogating them, right?), the world can see that the interrogations were handled humanely, and the defendents will not be able to claim otherwise.
While I don’t completely discard this argument, I do feel it is being overused. It is ridiculous, IMO to think that if we wrote out a document that specified, for example, three meals a day, reasonably nutritious, etc, that this would leave open the possibility of a foreign regime providing only pickled rats to prisoners and saying that this is their interpretation, as though the US giving a reasonable interpretation would make it valid for others to justify obviously unreasonable ones.
Correct me if I am wrong, but to my knowledge Bush does not way to write a document which specifies that three meals a day are nutritious. All he wants to do is write a document that says waterboarding and other certain “coercive” techniques are okay. He doesn’t want to affirmatively protect good things like access to meals; he wants to try to put bad things under the cover of law.
That’s the disgusting part of this. These people want to torture other human beings because they can. In my opinion, a person who tortures another is a monster. Why do we want to tell the world that America has monsters interrogating foreigners? How is that not sick?
Doctor Gonzo,
I agree with you that what you are describing would be wrong; that is what I’ve been asserting throughout this comment thread. But I’ve also been asserting that I feel it would be useful to qualify what is meant by humane treatment, only if we truly qualify humane treatment instead of trying to pretend that inhumane treatment is acceptable under some circumstances.
Since some seem not to have read, leg breaking is already out, as is murder or theats thereof. Unintended deaths or suicides are not really addressed. If you feel that you’re humiliated by having a doggie bark at you, I think you should consult the local chaplin (or shrink!) If you think that it’s cruel that the guards inspect your belongings, again, a visit to the chaplin may be in order.
3…
a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
“>Avalon Project Geneva Conventions
—
tortue is legally defined (at least for the USA) and illegal:
As used in this chapter—
(1) “torture� means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering� means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) “United States� means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.
US Code on torture
—
There are really two problems: who gets treated to which standard (POWs v illeagal combatants), and what the standards are for each group (assuming that they remain separate groups.)
Way to trivialize being threatened with assault by a dog. It’s not some poodle yipping at your heels.
To me, the standard shouldn’t be that hard: ask yourself if you would be okay with the government doing the practice in question to your mother. So if you would have no problem with the police grabbing your mother off the street and threatening her with police dogs, bringing them to within inches of her without any explanation at all, then fine. If you have a conscience, though, you might see using dogs in this manner inappropriate.
So you’re ok with yapping dogs, but not guard dogs? The opposite of my taste.
Which is the point, in a way. Some people claim that their religous beliefs mean that they shouldn’t be barked at, at all, because (or so I’m told) dog spittle is “unpure”.
Or was it cat yawning?
One person’s no-brainer is another person’s no-brainer, just on the other side.
This is lawfare, and we’re losing. Not only are we losing, it seems that Bush is the only one in Washington who has noticed.
What are we losing, exactly? How has torture done anything to protect the U.S.? Why do we need to torture people now, when we made it through over two hundred years of history, including such foes as the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany?
I’m continually shocked by people who think that a few hundred losers armed with boxcutters can somehow destroy our entire country themselves, and thus we have to become monsters to defeat them.
I will start by saying I am a democrat that is disgusted by the majority of democrats behavior of late. With that said, look above my response and below it and THAT is the reason that clarification is needed. If we are this divided on the issue, then obviously, some clarification is needed. I am not condoning torture, but who decides what is considered torture and what isn’t?
Rules must be clear and precise for our government to do the job is was voted into power to do…. PROTECT OUR COUNTRY.
The Geneva Conventions are not a new treaty, why is there a claim that clarification is needed now? Convention III was signed in Aug 12 1949, there wasn’t a need to clarify before, and so what has changed that makes it necessary now?
Let’s assume that clarification is needed. Should an American law clarify it, or should President Bush or the US Congress call for it as an amendment or change to the conventions? It’s not like they haven’t been added/changed in the past, “There is no one ‘Geneva Convention.’ Like any other body of law, the laws of war have been assembled piecemeal, and are, in fact, still under construction.â€? Link