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.
