Bush White House still Actively Championing Torture

[esskreemr]

As the Bush admin's appointee to the position of Torture Czar, Gonzales has recently "amended" statements that he had made earlier concerning the abuse of prisoners"

[b]Sorry in advance for typos or inconsistencies, I typed this directly from the image of the memo[/b}
http://news.findlaw.com/usatoday/doc...2mem2gwb3.html

The Geneva Convention III on the treatment of prisoners of war (GPW) does not apply to the conflict with al Queda.

In my judgement, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions requiring that prisoners be rendered such things a commissary privileges, scrip, athletic uniforms, and scientific equipment.

This statute, inacted in 1996, prohibits the commission of a "war crime" by or against a U.S. person, including U.S. officials. "War crime" for these purposes is defined to include any grave breach of GPW or any violoation of commong Article 3 thereof (suc as "outrages against personal dignity"). Some of the provisions apply (if the GPW applies) regardless of whether the individual being detained qualifies as a POW.

The rest of the memo goes on to state how the U.S. nullification of the Geneva Convention could end up blowing up in our face. The memo was basically a get out of jail free card for Bush and other higher ups in case war crimes where prosecuted against the U.S.

Last week the Bush Admin had a clause stricken from a Bill that was passed by the Senate in a 95-2 vote. The bill would have "would have explicitly extended to intelligence officers a prohibition against torture or inhumane treatment, and would have required the C.I.A. as well as the Pentagon to report to Congress about the methods they were using."
http://nytimes.com/2005/01/13/politi...rtner=homepage

Condi Rice disagreed with the provision because it "provides legal protections to foreign prisoners to which they are not now entitled under applicable law and policy."

So, is the U.S. running full steam at forming a fascist regime?

[mrbiggs]

Yeah, and I hear he's killing babies as well.

[esskreemr]

Yes, thanks. Well, Mr. Biggs's brilliant contribution this thread pretty much finishes it. No need for further discussion on this topic.

Thanks to Mr. Bigs for taking the time and effort in artfully constructing such a succinct and delightful response, demonstrating his astounding intellect and mastery of the English language. If only all threads could be resolved with such brevity. I applaud you. Bravo Sir! Bravo! (do i really need a smilie here?)

[noodle]

full steam? hell no.
but that is the way the wind seems to be proverbially blowing, doesn't it?

[mrbiggs]

Well, as I said in the thread about Bush killing babies, I hate Bush as much as the next New England liberal. But I really don't think he's "championing torture". I think we should have more than a vague quote from Rice before we really accuse Bush of.....supporting torture......

I mean, come on! You really beleive that Bush is supporting the torture of Iraqi prisoners? What would he have to gain from that?

[esskreemr]

Precedence.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

Precedence.

You mean that eventually he's going to publically torture people, and use the Iraqi events as evidence to rationalize it?

This is kinda a conspiracy theory...

[scrapinpeg]

The whole point is that, by including al Qaeda types in those protected by the treaties, that would create precedent for treating them as prisoners of war, which is something categorically not contemplated by the treaties.

It does not encourage, condone or authorize torture. It merely says these provisions don't apply to those people.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

{snip}
You really beleive that Bush is supporting the torture of Iraqi prisoners? What would he have to gain from that?

Well...playing devil's advocate. Information.

That is, after all, the general point of torture.

--Philistine

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

{snip}Last week the Bush Admin had a clause stricken from a Bill that was passed by the Senate in a 95-2 vote. The bill would have "would have explicitly extended to intelligence officers a prohibition against torture or inhumane treatment, and would have required the C.I.A. as well as the Pentagon to report to Congress about the methods they were using."
http://nytimes.com/2005/01/13/politi...rtner=homepage

Condi Rice disagreed with the provision because it "provides legal protections to foreign prisoners to which they are not now entitled under applicable law and policy."

So, is the U.S. running full steam at forming a fascist regime?

A couple of things on the article.

The administration didn't remove the provisions--Congress did. At the request of the Administration, to be sure--but the administration doesn't have the ability to kill parts of bills. (Short of vetoing the whole thing).

Also--the issue isn't gone--but instead put off. As the article later says: "The conferees agreed that they would drop the language but with the caveat that the intelligence committees would take up the issue this year."

Also--AIUI--"torture" is already illegal when used by the CIA even against foreigners (at least where the torture is done outside of the US).

18 USC §§ 2340 - 2340A

--Philistine

[jeff]

The other problem is that the Administration - and the "torture memos", as they've come to be called - attempt to define "torture" so narrowly as to permit acts we would commonly call torture. IIRC, cutting somebody's finger off, or the cliche "bamboo slivers underneath the fingernails" would be legally "not torture". Ecchhh, what deceptive nonsense.

I remember the way it worked in the movies (and our previous official policies) I grew up on: the bad guys flouted the Geneva Convention ("ve haf vays of making you talk!") while we good guys conformed to it. The excuses some people make for torture (eg: Limbaugh and his ilk, and the weasily ones in the Administration) sound exactly like the reasons given by the bad guys for the tortures they committed.

[Larrison]

Just an another data point in this discussion
http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_1_terrorists.html

I don't know this source well, but it does not appear to follow a hard line on either side of the political fence. They also don't provide a listing of sources either, which is always somewhat troubling.

[Larrison]

Geneva Convention as it applies to "terrorists"

I would add some additional considerations here, which may be of some interest in this discussion. The front part of this is a bit long, but some months ago I had occasion to look up some definitions out of the Geneva Conventions and submit them below, both for Prisoners of War and Civilians.

The critical issue is how to make a distinction between combatants and civilians, as they are treated differently. A soldier acting properly under orders is allowed to commit certain actions in combat that would be criminal otherwise (eg, the killing of other humans), but there are generally agreed rules about this codified under the Geneva Conventions. Soldiers fighting in unconventional ways (such as in a guerilla war) must be treated in compliance with this.

An soldier has several criteria they must meet to be treated as "Prisoners of War" as a captured enemy soldier. These include:
-- Must wear an identifying uniform of some type in combat (this may just be an armband or headband).
-- They must carry their weapons openly during and preparing for combat (and those weapons are subject to certain rules and usage).
-- They must be subject to some form of command and control system and take orders which are enforced with some type of discipline (eg, individuals or groups wearing uniforms but not subject to orders are not soldiers)
-- They must intentionally not target civilian (non combatant) targets and act with some justification of military objective. This includes not attacking prisoners of war (eg, captured enemy soldiers).
-- Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a clear separation between combatant and noncombatant groups - and thus endanger the civilian population - are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention.

Exceptions to this include medical and religious personnel, who are considered non-combatants even though they may wear uniforms. However, they are expected to not engage in offensive combat although they may fight to defend themselves if attacked. For example, medical personnel may carry small arms to use in self-defense if illegally attacked.

The other exception are mercenaries, who are specifically excluded from protections. Mercenaries are defined as soldiers who are not nationals of any of the parties to the conflict and are paid more than the local soldiers.

Although this obligation benefits civilians by making it easier for the warring sides to avoid targeting non-combatants, soldiers also benefit because they become immune from prosecution for acts of war. For example, a civilian who shoots a soldier may be liable for murder while a soldier who shoots an enemy soldier and is captured may not be punished.

Combatants who fall within the guidelines of the Geneva Conventions enjoy the following protections:
- Prisoners of war must be treated humanely. Specifically, prisoners must not be subject to torture or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind. However, there is no general description of non-physical torture. They must also be protected against violence, intimidation, insults and public curiosity. The public display of POWs is also prohibited.
- When questioned - in the prisoner's native language - prisoners of war must only give their names, ranks, birth dates and serial numbers. Prisoners who refuse to answer may not be threatened or mistreated.
- Prisoners of war must be immediately evacuated away from a combat zone and must not be unnecessarily exposed to danger. They may not be used as human shields.

Finally, and most importantly, prisoners of war may not be punished for the acts they committed during the fighting unless the opposing side would have punished its own soldiers for those acts as well.

Civilians: Both the fourth Geneva Convention and the two Additional Protocols extend protections to civilians during war time.
- Civilians are not to be subject to attack. This includes direct attacks on civilians and indiscriminate attacks against areas in which civilians are present.
- There is to be no destruction of property unless justified by military necessity.
- Individuals or groups must not be deported, regardless of motive.
- Civilians must not be used as hostages.
- Civilians must not be subject to outrages upon personal dignity.
- Civilians must not be tortured, raped or enslaved.
- Civilians must not be subject to collective punishment and reprisals.
- Civilians must not receive differential treatment based on race, religion, nationality, or political allegiance.
- Warring parties must not use or develop biological or chemical weapons and must not allow children under 15 to participate in hostilities or to be recruited into the armed forces.

However, if a Civilian attacks or attempts to militarily influence lawful soldiers or military operations (such as through sabotage, spying, military propaganda, etc), then they are not subject to the Geneva Conventions. This is a bit of a gray area, and is subject to a lot of interpretation I've noticed. For example, putting sugar in a gas tank of a military truck is obviously sabotage, but is standing on the street corner singing a revolutionary song military propaganda? Proving some of this is also a bit unclear as well -- there are no required levels of evidence I don't believe, other than under prevailing military codes.

Now, this all gives rise to come interesting issues, and points out some huge gray areas going on in Iraq where we don't know enough information to judge what's going on in each case exactly.

In the case of Al Quada -- such as those engaged in aircraft hijacking, truck bombing or other indescriminant terrorist actions -- they obviously do not fall under the Geneva convention. Some Al Quada personnel who fought in Afghanistan and were captured fall under the heading of mercenaries, I would judge, and not fall under the Geneva convention.

The jahidists in Iraq if foreign nationals would also fall under mercenaries. Iraqi nationals fighting against the the coalition and Iraqi Congress would have to be judged on a case by case basis. Certainly use of a car bomb in an indescriminant manner would remove a group from under the Geneva convention.

Anyway -- not to try to draw a conclusion from this, but to add data to this discussion.

[L.O.A.S.]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

Precedence.

Precedence for what? Who thinks what happened at Abu Ghraib falls closer to hazing (as in college fraternities) than it does to torture (as in Saddam's death rooms)? Now personnally I am disgusted by the actions of those few malcontents, but I do not believe it was santioned by our leaders.

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

Precedence for what? Who thinks what happened at Abu Ghraib falls closer to hazing (as in college fraternities) than it does to torture (as in Saddam's death rooms)? Now personnally I am disgusted by the actions of those few malcontents, but I do not believe it was santioned by our leaders.

Funny, because those malcontents think their actions were sanctioned by our leaders...

[L.O.A.S.]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

Funny, because those malcontents think their actions were sanctioned by our leaders...

Yeah, but they can't be trusted. They're malcontents.

[jeff]

But, the amen chorus on the right, and more important some officials in the administration mocking the situation and those complaining about it clearly offer sanction. What other purpose can there be to a "torture memo" detailing what is legally permissable? See, and read fully http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5197853/site/newsweek

I'm not happy with the page Larrison linked to at City Journal. What can we make of somebody whose page includes, in big font, "Don’t believe the charges. American troops treat terrorists with Geneva-convention politeness—perhaps too much so." (a clear falsehood) and includes a trivializing analogy comparing it to withholding a chocolate bar? Most of the page is rationalization for torture.

[Rogue]

I have no problem with the methods used to gain information from these terrorist.
Among other things, this war will succeed or fail due to information/intelligence.

Our enemy offers no quarter (see the murder by beheading videos) none should be granted.

[L.O.A.S.]

First, I think the "Torture Memo" should be refered to as the "Interrogation Guideline Memo". When you say "Torture", that brings images of cutting off fingers and ears, hooking up a persons genitals to electrodes and turning up the voltage, and other Ghengis Kahn type activities that a former presidential candidate once refered to. What this "Interrogation Guideline Memo" tries to get at, is what types of methods are acceptable to induce information from a person (not bound by the guidelines of the Geneva Conventions), short of maiming/killing.
Keep in mind, the intention is to use this on captured terrorist who plans to do us harm and not the average joe caught jay walking. What if a terrorist group planned to detonate a nuclear weapon in a US city and we captured someone with the inside scoop. How hard should we probe? Again, I am not talking about the sick sadistic stuff that used to go on in Uday and Qusay Hussein's recreation room. I am also not referring to the sophmoric stunts carried out by Army reservist at Abu Ghraib.