You and I agree on the SH point

9/15/06 6:03:39 PM

What two things are the admin pushing?

Getting legal cover for warrentless wiretaps and redefining torture. I wonder if it's because they know they are guilty of something or other.

-----------------------------------------
Impeach Bush. Impeach Cheney. Do it now.

Post #267,707

9/15/06 9:49:23 PM

Its not >re< definition

Its clarification of what really >is< torture. Torture is actually one of the easy words to deal with. Its degrading and/or humiliating treatment. What exactly meets that criteria?

I think we all agree to at least certain standard (such as what happened at abu ghraib) but defintions of the words in the convention and in McCain's bill are so wide and open to varying interpretation that I happen to agree with GWB that its almost to the point where you should just shut it down.

Like I said in previous post...is a strip search "degrading"? Or does only reach degrading if you make the prisoner stand naked for an hour. or 2.

Does a physical, including the traditional prostrate check and test for hernia considered degrading? (I vote yes...and I'm not even a prisoner)...so at this point we could be treating a prisoner to healthcare benefits better than our own and STILL be violating the Geneva rules, depending on your interpretation.

Trust me, they'll get their cover for wiretaps one way or another.

And some of the other aspects of GWB's proposal are simply bad...but the counter proposal is equally bad. These aspects center on the reauthorization of tribunals and the change in evidence rules the admin wants to use to protect "national security" interests.

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #267,725

9/16/06 12:21:26 AM

It's not that difficult, IMHO.

[link|http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm|Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War]:

Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, 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, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(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.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

[...]

Emphasis added.

Is the language really that nebulous that it needs to be clarified? When it has been [link|http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/24/usint8614.htm|US law since 1955]?

I think one should be suspicious when people argue that clear terms need to be "clarified" in a way that dilutes or even negates their clear meaning.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #267,726

9/16/06 12:47:51 AM

Gimme a break on that

There's alot of things from 1955 that won't past muster in current environments. Back then there were a handful of reporters with cameras and you watched them all at 6pm.

Don't misunderstand. The attempt Bush is making is misguided and bringing attention to something that should best be left quiet. But it is exactly that aspect of our open society that won't allow these things to stay quiet and will continue to be one of the main levers used to compromise our security. And, my apologies to the current regime, these are things which we should not change even in the knowledge that these principles will likely cause people to die.

Still, I agree that clarification...specifically as to what constitutes degrading and humiliating treatments would be a good thing. Yes Mr. McCain, it would also set the standard by which we would expect our men to be treated...and no, Mr McCain, I won't expect the jihadists to stop beheading captives and start questioning soldiers naked. That would be a bit too...civilized.

a, b, and d are very clear...at least to me and nearly everyone else. Which is why there is objection (by me and many) on introduction of heresay and the withholding of evidence from defense counsel..also part of Bush proposal.

And one other point of order...

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties..

When did Osama sign up???

Interesting blog on this [link|http://www.homocon.com/archives/2005/08/from_here_to_th.html|here]

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #267,737

9/16/06 8:52:20 AM

9/16/06 10:02:52 AM

I think we're talking past each other.

There's alot of things from 1955 that won't past muster in current environments. Back then there were a handful of reporters with cameras and you watched them all at 6pm.

My point in bringing up 1955 was to indicate that there hasn't been much controversy over the language since then - until the Bush administration decided that the Geneva Conventions were [link|http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=%2079532|quaint and obsolete].

The ideas behind the GCs go back to the [link|http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva02.htm|1920s] and even earlier. They don't exist because they're convenient. They exist to spell out in clear language that people must be treated humanely when they're captured as a result of military action.

Don't misunderstand. The attempt Bush is making is misguided and bringing attention to something that should best be left quiet. But it is exactly that aspect of our open society that won't allow these things to stay quiet and will continue to be one of the main levers used to compromise our security.

I disagree.

Look at the people who are advocating loosening the restrictions and compare them to the people who say it's dangerous to do so. The guarantees of the GC aren't making us less secure.

The people who have and who want to carry out attacks like 9/11 don't care about consequences. They don't care about torture or waterboarding or being stacked up in naked piles and so forth. They want to kill as many people as possible while carrying out their martrydom operations. The GC protections exist to protect the humanity of people who are captured, 99% of which aren't in the jihadist martyr camp. And to protect the moral standing of the interrogators. And to preserve an international system so that we don't have a return to the concept of Total War that would destroy civilization.

And, my apologies to the current regime, these are things which we should not change even in the knowledge that these principles will likely cause people to die.

There's nothing to apologize about that. ;-)

Still, I agree that clarification...specifically as to what constitutes degrading and humiliating treatments would be a good thing.

I still don't see why it's needed.

Elsewhere in the GCs there is mention of protecting captives from public spectacle. I think degrading treatment can be understood the same way. Namely, do not treat captives in ways that are contrary to your country's laws for civilian prisoners; don't treat captives different from the ways you would want your troops to be treated if they were captured by the other side. It's not that difficult.

And one other point of order...

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties..

When did Osama sign up???

I've expressed my thoughts on that before - [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=223989|#223989]. The bottom line for me, now, is that the conventions exist to protect the humanity of prisoners. It doesn't matter whether they were wearing a uniform or were regular soldiers or not. Maybe the GCs should be modified regarding contact with outsiders, letters and packages from home, etc., in certain cases, but the basic protections of 1) having their status decided by a fair judicial process with checks and balances and with the opportunity to prove their innocence, 2) not being subject to cruel or degrading or painful treatment, etc., should hold whoever they are.

FWIW.

[edit:]I meant to add this earlier.

Note that there's quite a bit of [link|http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/10/washington/10detain.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=us&pagewanted=print|disagreement about Bush's categorization of Zubaydah's interrogation and the effectiveness of harsh interrogation techniques]. Not having been there, I can't say which is right, but I have an inkling.

Cheers,
Scott.

Edited by Another Scott Sept. 16, 2006, 10:02:52 AM EDT

Expand All History

Post #267,751

9/16/06 3:39:43 PM

Maybe not

My point in bringing up 1955 was to indicate that there hasn't been much controversy over the language since then - until the Bush administration decided that the Geneva Conventions were quaint and obsolete.

The ideas behind the GCs go back to the 1920s and even earlier. They don't exist because they're convenient. They exist to spell out in clear language that people must be treated humanely when they're captured as a result of military action.

Yep..they established rules of war...not just captive rules. And the strongest case the adminstration has is that the currently enemy was not a thought of the framers of those rules.

I actually am completely in agreement that captured terrorists should NOT have to be treated by convention rules. They do not meet any standard set forth to qualify. They don't wear designated uniforms..they openly target civilians as part of their engagement strategy. This entire exersize, including the wish to clarify the rules, is an example of our ethical superiority to our current enemy...even if we only settle on degrading.

So my point is that there is sufficient change in the game of war since 1955, and sufficient change in environment (and media pressure is a large component of that) that would lead to the need to make sure the rules are much more specific.

You and I both know its not that big a deal, but we're not the ones that are asking people to do things that could land them a lifetime in prison if some dutch guy has a different definition of inhumane.

And mind you, this is a game that only we will play...as I don't think any Al Q members are going to worry about definitions of inhumane...they know torture and death and will continue to treat our soldiers and worse, our civilians along those lines.

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #267,743

by Simon_Jester

9/16/06 1:38:32 PM

be careful what you wish for....

in determining what is allowed and what is not, will set the precident for future Presidents, and I guarentee they will use it for items not to your liking.

Currently, the language is vague...allowing a popular or powerful president a lot of latitude. In providing strict guidelines (or stricter guidelines) a Clinton (or their like) could use it to their own end.

Post #267,752

9/16/06 3:46:11 PM

9/16/06 3:50:53 PM

I am completely fine with that.

You seem to misinterpret my point. Aside from this being a grandiose lesson in mental masturbation by a bunch of beaurocrats...clarification of these terms is >legally advisable<. Now that we have a press corp that is hell bent on taking anybody down that has a hint of celebrity (stars, athletes, politicians)...I can't say I would blame any one for wanting to make sure the rules were very clear.

Clinton made an art form of leveraging vague language. Hell, he pretty much had everyone agreeing that getting a hummer wasn't sex.

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Edited by bepatient Sept. 16, 2006, 03:50:53 PM EDT

Expand All History

Post #267,808

by Ashton

9/17/06 5:58:53 AM

It sure as hell ain't that churchly fornication thing

but yes - obviously whatever-it-was, it was vastly more serious a High Crime and Misdemeanor than say - lying a country into an unlawful invasion of another country.

Maybe we shoulda impeached the bastard..

Nahhhh, that extremist stuff would be laughed away; what are we, Stupid?

Post #267,810

9/17/06 8:07:17 AM

What about when the "clarification" is used on US troops?

Still fine? Waterboarding. It's not just for terrorists* anymore.

*They're terrorists until we let them go and say "Sorry, my bad".

-----------------------------------------
Impeach Bush. Impeach Cheney. Do it now.

Post #267,812

9/17/06 10:08:56 AM

Considering the alternative

which is beheading...I'd say waterboarding would be a vacation.

We are the only side playing by these rules...in case you've missed me saying that for the umpteenth time.

Next time we go to war with France...I'd say subjecting our soldiers to waterboarding might then be an issue.

Look down the threat list. China didn't sign..and won't abide. N Korea. Iran. Darfur. Anybody on that list that you think would not, regardless of what the convention says...torture our military?

And yes...the larger issue is innocents trapped in the system.

And then there are those that worry that people just won't like us because of this. Sorry, they already don't like us...and its not what we do to prisoners making that happen...its our inconsistency in ME policy and our continued support of Israel that does that...and in 2 years I'm sure, regardless of this argument...that we'll change policies again.

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #267,826

by pwhysall

9/17/06 11:09:13 AM

What other people do doesn't matter. What we do does.

The whole damn point of this exercise in global force-projection is that we have the moral high ground.

The minute we lower ourselves to "their" level, we've lost, no matter what the military outcome.

If we don't win the moral victory, we've won nothing at all.

Post #267,838

by imric

9/17/06 1:31:10 PM

Hear, hear!

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #267,843

9/17/06 2:49:18 PM

No argument.

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #267,934

by mmoffitt

9/18/06 12:05:21 PM

No.

All we have to do is "further refine meanings." Then we've got the high ground again.

[image|/forums/images/warning.png|0|This is sarcasm...]

bcnu,
Mikem

It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell

Post #267,836

by imric

9/17/06 1:30:30 PM

The altenative to waterboarding is beheading?

Bullshit.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #267,844

9/17/06 2:50:28 PM

Who would be capturing our troops?

Are you telling me that Danny Pearl wouldn't have rather been subjected to waterboarding?

BS yourself.

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #267,851

by imric

9/17/06 5:13:31 PM

So friggin' what?

Yo set up a false dichotomy.

So the 'choices' are waterboarding or beheading? If we don't want beheadings, we gotta waterboard?

Bullshit.

Since waterboarding is less bad than beheading, and the enemy used beheading, then waterboarding is OK?

Bullshit again.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #267,865

9/17/06 10:12:07 PM

You are missing the point.

and i didn't set up any dichotomy. Go up the thread.

What about when the "clarification" is used on US troops?

Others here are talking about US interrogators using this technique. My retort >to this title< was simply that captives of the current enemy would be lucky to be treated to the worst we have to offer...as the current MO of the enemy is beheading.

Follow along.

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #267,868

by imric

9/17/06 10:28:06 PM

FOLLOW ALONG?

I don't give a damn about what some other folks, current adversaries or future, do. It doesn't excuse us, it doesn't excuse our current administration's attempt to legalize and codify coercive abuse.

And have no illusions about that. By codifying abuse into law, that makes any changes a matter of degree, rather than category. Convenient. Changes of who is an 'enemy combatant' will also be able to be changed. Handy.

Follow along. Or wake up.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #267,869

9/17/06 11:05:49 PM

lest I have to repeat myself again

I have stated, repeatedly...I disagree with a great portion of the proposal...but I understand the desire to make it happen. This is not an endorsement. My statement has been ... the fact that we are having this discussion at all demonstrates superiority to the current and likely future enemies this country will face...and even if we "codify abuse"...that abuse is nothing near what our men at arms will face if captured.

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #267,870

by imric

9/17/06 11:34:53 PM

9/17/06 11:39:53 PM

And that doesn't matter, dude.

None of it does.

"that abuse is nothing near what our men at arms will face if captured" is a rationalisation - and a weak one. 'I'm not as bad as he is' does not in any way mean 'I'm not bad'. The fact that our current abuses aren't as bad as our current foes' gives me no comfort at all. The fact that you are presenting that rationalisation as a 'statement' bothers me.

It should bother you too, Bill.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Edited by imric Sept. 17, 2006, 11:39:53 PM EDT

Expand All History

Post #267,872

9/17/06 11:47:58 PM

Its not a rationalization

its simply a fact.

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #267,874

9/18/06 12:02:46 AM

Allow me to repeat myself

Don't be evil

-----------------------------------------
Impeach Bush. Impeach Cheney. Do it now.

Post #267,876

9/18/06 12:03:23 AM

Why not, its more fun.

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #267,878

9/18/06 12:08:49 AM

You're troll-fu has been weak for awhile now

Just look at this thread.

-----------------------------------------
Impeach Bush. Impeach Cheney. Do it now.

Post #267,879

9/18/06 12:16:52 AM

Haven't hit the warning track yet.

Have to have goals, you know.

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #267,895

by imric

9/18/06 7:09:34 AM

If it is a simple fact,

then why do you repeat it - unless you are trying to use it?

That 'simple fact' is being used by you as a rationalisation.

Riddle me this: Do YOU think that any level of coercive abuse should be codified into law?

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #267,898

by jbrabeck

9/18/06 8:20:04 AM

I think we've missed his point

He has said he doesn't agree with it, just at he understands why Shrub wants to "clarify" the GC.

A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. (Herm Albright)

Post #267,902

9/18/06 8:33:54 AM

Not quite.

As I've read him, Bill thinks it's important that the law be clarified so that there are sharp legal boundaries between permissible and impermissible interrogation techniques. He disagrees with other aspects of Bush's proposal (and I do as well).

I disagree; I think the present language of the GC is quite clear.

If I've misread him, I'm apparently not the only one.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #267,904

9/18/06 8:43:46 AM

Nope, you haven't.

Maybe the post to Imric will clarify even that.

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #267,903

9/18/06 8:42:48 AM

but I don't have to worry about being prosecuted nor having my employees prosecuted based on someones definition of humiliating or degrading. And the point earlier, ridiculous as it may seem, still stands. Does Sadam not being afforded 5 star accomodation reach the point of humiliating? Who decides?

The fact that we've become a headhunter culture for politicians, celebrities and the like means simply that they've got to think of these things not only in the vaguarity of simply "we, the people" but also in the very specific me and mine. This is why I've stated repeatedly that I understand the "need".

Personally, I'm more of an eye for eye person. If we catch the guys that stood on video and beheaded a captive...I'd stand them in front of the camera and do it back...only slower.

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #267,906

by imric

9/18/06 8:59:26 AM

No, it doesn't.

The point does NOT stand.

Especially that one.

So - NOT providing luxury is abuse? Nonsense. Using that as an argument for providing a framework for 'acceptable' coercive abuse? Ridiculous.

There is no part of this thing that is not evil.

That politicians want to be able to do it and not get in trouble for it is a measure of just how bad it is.

There is no excuse. There is no reason. Your statements are along the lines of "Well, since we gotta have abuse, we have to protect the people ordering it"

We do NOT have to have abuse.

We do NOT have to protect the bastards ordering it.

We do NOT have to fall to the level of our enemies to oppose them.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #267,913

9/18/06 9:27:22 AM

All valid points

but again, no one has given any defintion of what techniques are being discussed.

And Sadam was a head of state? Making him stay in a 10 by 10 would be, for some, humiliating. Yes it is a "stretch"...but it is not out of legal bounds in the current writing. Depending on culture, sticking a rubber glove up someone's tail may be considered degrading. Again, not protected in current writing.

So you keep insisting that I support torture or at least the protection of those ordering same...when all I continue to do is provide examples of where being nice to someone could still land those who are responsible in jail for doing nothing, hence understanding WHY they desire said cover and why it may be necessary. If for any other reason, removing the gray that allows GWB to come on TV and say "we had lawyers review what we did and it was legal"

My take.

Should the US CIA use waterboarding to gain info?

No.

Should they cut off fingers?

No.

Should they strip guys and stick them in a meat locker?

No.

Ok??

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #267,917

9/18/06 10:38:43 AM

Please quote what you're responding to.

You've said (above) that I'm wrong about my characterization of your posts, but you haven't done it with specificity. It seems to me that, in this reply, you're arguing that the law needs to be clarified, but you said that I'm wrong in that characterization.

Please lead me along step by step, because I still don't see where I'm wrong about what you're saying.

Or, just let this thread die and we'll try another day as we seem to be going round and round at the moment.

Thanks.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #267,927

9/18/06 11:49:06 AM

Your problem is with who you attribute the desire.

I >personally< don't care and >personally< find the need for this troubling. I also >personally< disagree with nearly all of the evidence rules proposed for tribunals.

I do, however, understand the administrations needs. Why the dichotomy? Because I don't anticipate ever being in a position ot be prosecuted based on vague language. Those in power have a completely different set of requirements than I, because they ARE in that position.

So, in short, I don't think it necessary, but I UNDERSTAND THE DESIRE of those who do.

If, in my position as a manager, I find myself in a position where my subordinates could be fired/jailed/reprimanded for >doing their job<..based on legal language that lacks specificity...I would likely AT LEAST MAKE THE ATTEMPT...to clarify the language before giving up altogether.

That is my point.

And some of the techniques used, though questionable, I do not think qualify as degrading or humiliating. Waterboarding is not one of those techniques. I believe that to be across the line...but >thinking< this and >prosecuting< this are separate. Which is why I keep giving the silly examples that I do. Someone, somewhere may think differently than we do...so applying those types of standards is inherently troubling, maybe not as troubling as the fact we are asking to make them ok, but troubling none the less.

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #267,962

by jbrabeck

9/18/06 1:39:38 PM

That's what I was trying to say

back here [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=267898|267898] when I said I thought we had missed your point. I didn't think it was YOUR opinion you were arguing, but you understood WHY it was being suggested.

A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. (Herm Albright)

Post #267,963

9/18/06 1:45:44 PM

And my response was affirmative to you

a negative affirmative, anyway ;-)

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #267,837

by Simon_Jester

9/17/06 1:30:56 PM

Technically speaking....

we aren't playing by the rules either.

Post #267,732

by Ashton

9/16/06 5:08:34 AM

This is so inherently a fool's errand, though -

Define love ...

while attempting to 'explain' to a Shrub + mentors that - there is No, can Be No exhaustive/inclusive litany of every proscribed way that a human might act, to attempt extraction of information which another human may or may not possess.

For that matter, the converse is intuitively obvious: no Lists of OK recipes shall be other than laughably obtuse works of Gonzales-grade obfuscation / bloodless clinical prose about an inherently despicable process, centered in the reptile brain
(Oh.. that brain doesn't do 'logic', either.)

This distraction is well within the spirit of the pseudo-science of The Law - parsing the unspeakable with creative equally-vague synonyms. Should be good for a few thousand more wasted hours of Congressional vapidity, equal and opposite to the cabal's.

Next week, let's take on 'advice and consent' - what does that phrase REALLY mean?
How exactly ought that process to be organized and concluded:
\ufffd wtf - kiddie stuff should Always be in Powerpoint;
\ufffd it worked so well for the Challenger iced-up O-rings.

Post #267,738

9/16/06 8:54:14 AM

9/16/06 10:11:39 AM

Exactly.

[link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/15/AR2006091501252_pf.html|Washington Post]:

[...]

A senior administration official, authorized to speak with reporters about the legal issues behind the administration's strategy yesterday on the condition that he not be named, said the CIA interrogations at issue are in "the gray area on the margins -- that ill-defined boundary -- of Common Article 3." He was referring to a Geneva Conventions provision that bars cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment, as well as "outrages upon personal dignity."

There are ironies in the positions of each side in the current dispute. The administration says its intent is to define the explicit meaning of Common Article 3 so that CIA officers know exactly what they can do. But the senior official who addressed the legal issue yesterday said the standard the administration prefers is "context-sensitive," a phrase that suggests an endlessly shifting application of the rules.

The reason is that the administration's language would in effect ban only those interrogation techniques that "shock the conscience." That phrase, drawn from a judicial interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, is a "flexible" standard, the official said. Others have said that standard would allow interrogators to weigh how urgently they felt they needed to extract information against the harshness of their techniques, instead of following rigid guidelines.

The official did not try to explain how embracing such an inherently flexible standard would actually create clarity, the watchword of the administration's public campaign for its version of the bill.

[...]

They should leave the GC (and US pre-2001 law) alone and follow its provisions in this area. IMHO.

Cheers,
Scott.

Edited by Another Scott Sept. 16, 2006, 10:11:39 AM EDT

Expand All History

Post #267,775

9/16/06 8:03:29 PM

Clarification defeats the purpose.

The authors of the Geneva conventions left it the way it is on purpose. If there is any doubt, don't do it. Trying to come up with guidelines for what is prohibited is a fools errand. Hey, whaddaya know, they didn't expressly prohibit sticking an ipod up someones ass, it must be allowed.

Get it?

-----------------------------------------
Impeach Bush. Impeach Cheney. Do it now.

Post #267,780

9/16/06 8:52:17 PM

Sure, I get it

And when we capture terrorists...I'm sure we're all ok with the fact that whatever they're planning remains their little secret and we continue to treat them like good little soldiers.

It means we're better.

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #267,785

by jake123

9/16/06 9:21:31 PM

Well, after all

when we capture people who someone thinks is a terrorist, we should of course pull out all the stops until we hear what we want to hear.

--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton                            jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca]                   [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada               [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------

Post #267,788

9/16/06 9:56:53 PM

It's not like people aren't interrogated all the time.

Murderers, even mass murderers, are interrogated daily without the necessity of torture.

It's not black and white, Bill. Treating captives like human beings rather than dogs (see the link below) isn't going to make us less safe.

There's an interesting article at the [link|http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/050711fa_fact4|New Yorker]:

The former F.B.I. official said that he opposed coercion on practical grounds, as much as anything else. \ufffdI don\ufffdt believe these things make successful strategies\ufffdsensory deprivation and such,\ufffd he said. \ufffdThere\ufffds a big lack of knowledge about the mind-set of extremists. Doing these things just makes them more determined to hate us. And eventually they are going to be released. When they are, they\ufffdre going to talk and exaggerate what happened to them. They\ufffdre going to become heroes. So then we\ufffdll have more extremist networks and more suicide bombers.\ufffd He also felt that there was a moral imperative to avoid coercive interrogations. \ufffdWe can\ufffdt go down to the level of our enemies,\ufffd he said. \ufffdIf we do, it\ufffds going to come back at us later on.\ufffd

Officials at the Washington headquarters of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service were also incensed by the use of coercive techniques at Guant\ufffdnamo. Some N.C.I.S. officials are participating in a combined task force preparing detainee cases for eventual prosecution, and they had access to computerized versions of the interrogation logs at Guant\ufffdnamo. When the officials read the details of Qahtani\ufffds interrogation, they had an extraordinary internal dispute.

According to a passage in Vice-Admiral Church\ufffds report that is unclassified but has not been released to the public, in December, 2002, Dr. Michael Gelles, the chief psychologist at the N.C.I.S., spoke with Alberto J. Mora, the Navy\ufffds general counsel, saying that, in his professional opinion, \ufffdabusive techniques\ufffd and \ufffdcoercive psychological procedures\ufffd were being used on Qahtani at Guant\ufffdnamo. Gelles warned of a phenomenon known as \ufffdforce drift,\ufffd in which interrogators encountering resistance begin to lose the ability to restrain themselves.

In July, 2004, Mora wrote a memo to Church\ufffds investigative team, in which he recounted his discussion with Gelles. He said that he had found the tactics he had read about in the Qahtani interrogation logs to be \ufffdunlawful and unworthy of the military services.\ufffd Mora argued that these practices \ufffdthreaten the entire military commission process.\ufffd According to the Church report, an N.C.I.S. official subsequently said that if the abusive practices continued \ufffdN.C.I.S. would have to consider whether to remain co-located\ufffd in Guant\ufffdnamo. According to a recent ABC News report, in January, 2003, Mora also told William J. Haynes, the Pentagon\ufffds general counsel, that \ufffdthe use of coercive techniques\ufffd could expose both interrogators and their administrators to criminal prosecution.

[...]

(Emphasis added.)

The solution is to stop using abusive interrogation techniques and to follow the GC. Not to try to define what's permissible and what isn't.

As the former FBI fellow said, eventually the vast majority of these people are going to be released. Do we really want to feed their hatred, or build new hatred, as a result of tactics that usually don't give information that can't be found other ways?

"But what about the nuclear bomb that's going to go off...?"

There's a saying - [link|http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_201.html|The Exception Proves the Rule]. The plain meaning of the law holds unless exceptions are explicitly spelled out.

If Mr. X knows the location of a bomb in NYC that will go off in 12 hours, and if Mr. Y is interrogating him, trying to find out where it is and how to disable it, then it seems to me there is no issue. How? Easy. If Mr. Y truly believes he has to use torture, then his superiors should be on-board. If he truly believes there is no other way, then he and his superiors should be willing to take full responsibility for his actions. They shouldn't fear prosecution if the choice is really as dire as it's presented in the hypothetical question. There's no issue.

Have you ever read or seen Fail Safe? Can you imagine General Black arguing that we need to change the law regarding permissible coercive interrogation techniques? I can't.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #267,791

9/16/06 10:32:05 PM

Chuckle

statement for effect. Certainly had one I can see.

My point is more basic. Here we are in a "moral dilemma" about how to treat enemies that don't share those morals.

Yes, it has to be done. I understand that. And its certain that we aren't always going to catch "a live one" and making sure we treat them well should be a priority...but I still can see the side of the argument that asks for clarity in the rules.

Here you link to an article that talks about "coercive interrogation" being "maybe" illegal.

Well, damn it...is it or isn't it? The inquiring mind of GWB wants to know.

It would be better if we could keep secrets, wouldn't it?

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #267,803

by pwhysall

9/17/06 3:09:50 AM

How do you know they're terrorists?

After all, if I was sleep deprived and had had a couple of beatings and other "coercive interrogation techniques" applied to me (it's a nice way of saying "torture", Bill) then, if I thought I could make it stop by telling my captor that I was a terrorist, I would.

And so would most people, which is why torturing people produces results.

Only the results are usually fairly useless.

Post #267,815

9/17/06 10:19:13 AM

Valid point.

Some we do, some its certain we don't. And I agree that erring on the side of treating everyone well is the best possible solution.

But my point is that the tradeoff is that it will likely cost lives that possibly could have been saved. So while we can sit around and make this a fun discussion, the person responsible and who will be blamed for those lives might have a harder time deciding between those alternatives. Also might have more of a vested interest, since he is also CIC and responsible for the interrogators...in making sure that the rules are clear.

Not saying though, that there wouldn't be endless entertainment value in having GWB try to define what is is in an impeachment proceeding or in the Hague ;-)

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #267,825

by pwhysall

9/17/06 11:06:06 AM

Oh, that's OK then.

It'll do the nebulous "saving lives" thing.

Break out the bastinado and the rubber hose forthwith!

Post #267,845