Southern Appeal - "With a rebel yell, they cried more, more, more!"
That's pretty insensitive.
Normally I like Taranto, but not on this one. The late presidential campaign on supposed crimes and heroics from the 1960's was wearying. As is the game of "you can't talk about war because you weren't in combat...you can't talk about poverty policies if you haven't been poor...you can't talk about drowning tortures because..."
That's pretty insensitive
So is causing the drowning death of a young woman.
The description of waterboarding I read earlier involved dunking the prisoner under water.
So if you or Mr. Taranto ended up being a military POW and the North Koreans were "waterboarding" you, then you'd both be nice and relaxed because it was only scary, not dangerous.
What bothers me about the downplaying of our treatment of prisoners in Iraq is that obviously the intent is to extract information and you're not going to get that with actions on the level of a frat initiation. So it's reasonable to assume that the interogators actions go somewhat beyond that, somewhat beyond what's being reported.
As to Ted Kennedy, with no disrespect to Mary Jo K., there is a huge difference between someone involved in a fatal accident and a candidate for AG trying to justify mistreatment, if not torture, of prisoners.
Tomeck:
"As to Ted Kennedy, with no disrespect to Mary Jo K., there is a huge difference between someone involved in a fatal accident and a candidate for AG trying to justify mistreatment, if not torture, of prisoners."
You're right, they're different. In only one of those things did someone actually drown.
I'll admit that driving a car off a narrow bridge at night might have been simple negligence (i.e., an accident) for most people. Driving a car after a night of partying and drinking might amount to something more however. Exactly what no one but Sen. Kennedy will know because no sobriety tests were possible when he finally surfaced (oops, didn't mean that) and met with the police 12 hours later. But, leaving the scene of an accident, knowing a woman was trapped in a submerged automobile, is not an accident. That was, and could only have been, a deliberate act so wilfully malicious that he deserves condemnation to this day because of it. To throw in our faces without regard to its reaction, not to mention with full acquiesence by some, feculent parallels to that terrible night is evidence of a moral bankruptcy I didn't think one, even he, could evince. I'm now sure that on his gravestone should read: "Here not lies Mary Jo. Here lies her end. Unrepentant forever." God forgive the sorry bastard.
Tomeck
Keep in mind that one thing that has never been denied is that most of our intelligence information on the Middle East and Al Quaida comes from Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, the Phillipines and other countries which undeniably torture prisoners. Even Israel, untill recently, by law, allowed interrogators to use, "moderate, physical force." There are 435 Congressman and 100 Senators. Have any of them proposed legislation prohibitting the CIA from sharing intelligence information from those countries or recieving reports from the Mossad from suspects they "interrogated"? As far as I'm concerned, there is no moral difference between torturing someone and recieving information obtained by torture. It's like saying, "I don't steal, but I'll buy stolen goods." Furthermore, whether they like to admit it or not, every single member of the Judiciary community who fails to urge for legislation restricting what countries the CIA can get information from is tacitly endorsing that behavior. As far as I'm concerned, the only difference between Ted Kennedy and Gonzales is that Gonzales is more honest. In fact, whether we like to admit it or not, most Americans, whether liberal or conservative, deep down in a part of them that they'd rather not admit exists, endorses torture. The only reservations most of us have is that we only want it done when necessary, and we don't want to be confronted about it and be forced to admit that we want to happen. If you think I'm wrong, start listing as many prominent liberals or conservatives as you can who have argued against accepting information from Jordan, Egypt, Israel, etc.
Bowman
We already have laws, domestic and treaty, that prohibit torture. Outsorucing torture violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the law. I'm not familiar with the actual text of the laws, but I think I read that these kinds of evasions are violations.
You're right that many Americans, prominent or not, are at least willing to live with torture as long as they don't have to be confronted by it. But many in the peace movement are not in that group, and we get spat on (figuratively if not literally) by supporters of the administration.
And perhaps one reason so many are willing to put up with it is that we only get to hear and see the sanitized version that gets put out to the media. Remember when the Congress saw the slide show by the DoD? Even Republicans came out saying there were things that was much worse than what had made it to print so far. You're right that Democrats should demand and end to it, even knowing the kind of campaign that would be launched against them. But the administration bears the added burden of initiating and trying to cover up the behavior.
Tomeck,
I think you miss my point. Please, give me the name of a single prominent, mainstream member of the "Peace" movement who has specifically argued against the US recieving information from the countries I recieved. Yes, some have made vague denunciations about the "outsourcing of torture," but we both know that's not the same. Now, as to the question, why don't they, well, we both know why. Because not accepting such intelligence would dramatically hurt our war against Al-Quaida and make us far more vulnerable to attacks.
Also, while I'm not going defend torture, it seems to me that far too many people fail to reallize that in war and international conflicts it's impossible to avoid hurting people. Leaving aside the ravages of war, Consider a few things. Virtually every member of the "peace movement" of today were rabid supporters or economic sanctions against South Africa, even though sanctions led to the deaths of thousands, if not tens of thousands of Black South Africans from diseases and hunger. Explain to me why starving tens of thousands of South African or Iraqui citizens to death is somehow less repulive than torturing a small number of evil people to potentially save millions?
Ah, now I understand. If you all hate Ted Kennedy enough, it makes it ok for Gonzales to authorize torture.
That kind of "understanding" comes from not reading the comments you're responding to, not one of which says or implies any such thing.
Joseph,
You must understand Mr. P's post is but a sample of the mindless pablum he insists on regurgitating here.
Bowmanguy
Excuse me, but blaming the deaths of blacks in South Africa on the international sanctions is like blaming the deaths of the Jews on America and England because we were fighting against the Nazis. Sanctions in no way forced the South African government to shoot blacks, to force blacks into conditions of poverty and starvation or to deprive them of any political power or human rights. There was plenty of food available for South Africa to feed it's people. All South Africa had to do was take the steps it ultimately took, which hasn't turned out to be so bad, has it?
I'm afraid of I don't know of a "prominent" peace leader who spoke the specific quote you're asking for. I do know that if you show up at my church on any Sunday, you'll find several hundred people who will make the point you're asking about.
And I must be getting more conservative in my old age, because I find myself siding with the FBI in the belief that torture is an ineffective way to gain intelligence, whether done by us or others. That's not to say it will never work.
I understand that you are not in favor of torture, but I think you are off the mark when you say "far too many people fail to reallize that in war and international conflicts it's impossible to avoid hurting people." That is precisely why so many in the peace movement are there. Just look at the ratio of civilian dead to miltary dead in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, to say nothing of all the conflicts in Africa. War is increasingly waged against civilians. We are long overdue to look for a different way. You may think it's Pollyannish, but the alternative is to accept the status quo.
Tomeck,
In all seriousness, I appreciate your desire for peace and your attitude regarding war and torture. However, I am afraid that your belief that somehow war can be totally replaced with some different approach is Pollyannaish. As Plato said, “Only the dead have seen the end of war.”
It goes without saying that war is terrible. Nevertheless, when it is waged it must be done so to win as decisively and quickly as possible. To a certain degree this logic applies to interrogations as well. Interrogating individuals is an unpleasant activity that must be utilized in order to achieve more important goals. It must be done as effectively and quickly as possible so as to get important information to those who need it in time for them to use it. Unfortunately, when dealing with Middle Eastern terrorists that are often willing to act as suicide bombers direct questioning and harsh language won’t cut it. Consequently, stress positions, sleep deprivation, blaring music, and other psychological ploys are often the only tools available to us. These are a far cry from torture. I have seen the torture chambers Saddam and his monsters used in Iraq. I know the vicious practices they employed. Cutting out tongues, pulling out teeth, removing body parts, watching friends and family fed to lions. That was torture. The people we are dealing with come from cultures where such practices are used regularly. Consequently, you are not going to get info out of these people with a smile and a Coke. If you aren’t going to use the necessary methods to integrate effectively you should not interrogate at all. Otherwise you are simply wasting their time and yours.
Tomeck,
You say that "blaming the deaths of blacks... on international sanctions is like blaming the deaths of Jews on America and England." I'm sorry but that analogy doesn't work. Britain and America fighting against Hitler had nothing to do with the implementation of the Holocaust. Economic sanctions against South Africa did lead to the deaths of tens of thousands of blacks, because it dramatically hurt the South African economy and the people hurt the worst by this were black. The same thing happened in Iraq, and, since you bring up the "peace movement" it's worth noting that many in the peace movement condemned economic sanctions against Iraq, because they led to so many civilian deaths. Oh, and yes, I supported sanctions against South Africa, I just recognize the consequences. Do you condemn those in the peace movement who claimed economic sanctions against Iraq amounted to mass murderer?
Let's be clear we have this correct: The position of Southern Appeal and the Wall Street Journal is that Ted Kennedy's accident nullifies the Geneva Convention?
On my shelf right now is a reminder of World War II, *Flags of Our Fathers.* James Bradley writes of his father, John Bradley, one of the Marines who hoisted the American standard on Iwo Jima, in that famous photo, represented in the monument on the western bank of the Potomac near the Netherlands Carrillon. John Bradley was one of thousands of quiet heroes -- and you should read the last chapter. What made this nation worth fighting, and dying, for, is that we did not stoop to the actions of torture as a matter of policy -- and when renegades did, we corrected it.
Our attorney-general designate has pulled the flag off of Iwo Jima, and surrendered our morals to the World War II Japanese.
Kennedy was drunk. What's Bush's excuse? What is Gonzalez's excuse? They act, sober, as our enemies? The act, sober, as a drunken Democrat?
God have mercy on us all.
Mr. Darnell,
I am sure I have this correct: you resort to ridiculous hyperbole and outrageous rhetoric!
Unless you are irretrievably stupid I fail to see how anyone could read any of the posts here as standing for the proposition that Sen. Kennedy’s accident somehow nullified the Geneva Conventions.
Let me brake this down for you as simply as possible. Sen. Kennedy, whose actions led to the drowning death of a young lady, is the last person who should demonstrate moral outrage at a practice where individuals are only made to feel as though they might, but won’t, drown.
Although I am sure this will surprise you, like it or not, Mr. Gonzalez accurately presented the state of the law in his memo. The Geneva conventions do not apply to unlawful combatants like those Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters captured in Afghanistan. An individual is an unlawful combatant if he fails to wear a uniform or easily recognizable device, does not answer to a responsible chain of command that will enforce observance of the laws of armed conflict, observe the laws of armed conflict, etc. Like it or not those terrorists, by their own actions, have removed themselves from the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
Consequently, I suggest you learn a little more about the subject before you make such ridiculous comments.
Furthermore, As currently serving Marine Corps officer I can assure you that the flag is still flying on the Iwo Jima memorial.
In light of your demonstrated silliness, I think it is you that is in particular need of mercy from wherever you can find it.
"While Kennedy is certainly right to condemn any and all forms of torture"
So torture is to be condemned in all cases and instances. Isn't this the kind of categorical thinking that underlies all leftist thought? In a world where there are no permanent solutions, only trade-offs, could not torture be justified in some instances?
Doesn't the law of diminishing returns teach us that at some point, a refusal to use any interrogation technique, which could be classified as torture, on a terrorist prisoner cost too many innocent lives to justify such a categorical repudiation?
As to Kennedy's posturing, shouldn't the dems have had someone with a little more credibility when it comes to questions of morality posit these questions? Oh, I forgot, they have no one at that level who fits that bill.
Cheers,
Mike
Excellent Link on the "torture" question:
http://www.city-journal.org/
html...terrorists.html
One correction. There are certain protections in the Geneva Conventions that apply to *all* persons who are not taking active part in the hostilities -- including those who were fighting, but have been placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, or detention. These include "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture" -- as well as hostage-taking and a few other basic violations.
You can read them in common article 3 of the conventions (these apply to "armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties"). There's room to argue about each of these terms, including what torture is, but it isn't correct to say that *none* of the Geneva protections apply to unlawful combatants.
Joseph,
First of all I believe your reference to General Article 3 (GA3) is irrelevant. As you pointed out GA3 applies to purely INTERNAL conflicts. Conflicts like Grenada, Panama, and Kosovo have been held to be international Article 2 conflicts. Consequently, Afghanistan, where you had the active participation of a large international coalition, certainly rises to the level of an Article 2 conflict. Article 2 is quite clear on who gets POW protections and who does not. Furthermore, GA3 does not provide combatant immunity so even those that fall under its protections when it applies, and it doesn’t in the case of Afghanistan, still remain lawful targets. Additionally, Protocol II tends to narrow the scope of CA3. It defines armed conflict whereas the CA3 does not. Unlike CA3, it also requires that to receive the protection of Protocol II, an armed force must be under responsible command and exercise control over some territory. Protocol II, Art. 1. This narrowing has the effect of excluding some from the protections of CA3. I think this definitely excludes Al Qaeda. Although the U.S. is not a party to Protocol II I think it is instructive. Nevertheless, GA3 does not apply to the conflict in Afghanistan so it is a mute point anyway.
Consequently, I stand by my original point. In Afghanistan, and Article 2 conflict, none of the protections afforded POWs apply to the unlawful combatants captured there.
OOPS, CA3 should read GA3.
For heavens sake, I meant GA3 should read CA3 and it should read Common Article not General Article. Multi tasking is not working today.
My understanding is different. First, I will set aside "combatant immunity" -- I do not for a moment believe that unlawful combatants have *that*. And of course persons attacking our troops are legitimate *targets*, regardless of their Geneva status. I am only concerned here with the basic CA3 protections (which do not include combatant immunity, but which do include the protection against torture). And because treaties are "supreme law" under Article VI, I am most interested in what US courts have to say about them (these are the readings that are binding on us).
As the District Court for the District of Columbia rightly pointed out, the CA3 protections for conflict "not of an international character" are a bare minimum, a floor, for all kinds of conflict. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 334 F. Supp. 2d 152, 162-63 (D.D.C. 2004). This is so not only because it is the apparent intent of the parties, but because the basic protections of Article 3 are customary international law. (Our current conflict with insurgent elements is not of an international character in any case.)
The DOD seems to recognize this -- see 32 CFR 11.5(g) ("persons protected by the law of war" includes persons protected by customary international law, including persons hors de combat - no qualification); see also AR 190-8, section 5-1 (no form of torture allowed against *any* "civilian internee" -- which by the glossary includes civilians detained because of offenses against the detaining power). I do too. Perhaps the law ought to be different and to allow for some torture, but it doesn't.
Joseph,
Two points. First of all I should probably have made my point clearer. The rights afforded to POWs do not apply to the detainees at Gitmo because they do not meet the requirements mentioned above to be considered POWs. That does not mean that we can torture them but it does mean that we have greater leeway in interrogating them than we would if they were POWs. The Geneva Convention protections for POWs do not apply. Whereas reasonable people can disagree about what constitutes torture I do not believe what we are doing in Gitmo constitutes torture. Furthermore, as I stated above CA3 has been narrowed by Protocol II to the degree that I do not believe it applies to Al Qaeda terrorists on any level. Consequently, CA3’s bare minimum simply does not apply to them.
Secondly, I disagree that the “insurgency” is “not of an international character in any case.” We have captured and killed “insurgents” from Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Iran. When you add to our current conflict the member nations of our coalition it is hard to imagine a conflict with a more international flavor.
Joseph,
Although we may disagree, let me say that it has been a pleasure to discuss this issue with you. You have made some very good points and you obviously know what you are talking about.
Thank you kindly.
I do not consider that fighting to be "of an international character" because the parties are not nations...my understanding is that the treaty is saying, here's a sizable list of protections for when one nation invades another. Now, let's suppose that you're fighting *inside* a country and not against another nation. You still have to do at least *this* much, even though these treaties are mainly regulations of war between nations.
I certainly agree that detainees in such a case have fewer protections than out-and-out POW's (the most important differences being combatant immunity and repatriation at the end of hostilities).
Furthermore, I agree that the protection CA2 gives to everyone who isn't fighting (it prohibits "violence to life and person, in particular...torture" and also "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment") is less than that provided by GPW Article 17 to POW's alone (it not only forbids "physical and mental torture [and] any other form of coercion" to extract "information of any kind whatever," but also states that "[p]risoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind"). CA2 says you can't whip them; GPW 17 says you can't call them bad names or withdraw their chocolate rations until they talk.
I checked Geneva Protocol II, and Article 4 of the Protocol reiterates that "All persons who...have ceased to take part in hostilities" are protected to such an extent that "the following acts against [them] are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever:" - the prohibited acts include the CA2 protections against torture and humiiating treatment. I do not see what in Protocol II narrows the scope of the CA2 protections.
P.S.: I enjoy it, too.
Joseph,
My point was that Protocol II narrows CA3. CA3 does not define “armed conflict” whereas Protocol II does, making what is covered by the term “armed conflict” more concrete and less vague. Furthermore, Protocol II imposes requirements for protections that CA3 does not, for instance, an armed force must be under a responsible command and exercise control over some territory. Consequently, I think this requirement excludes Al Qaeda fighters captured on the battlefield.
I said "CA2" but meant "CA3"...but you see. You're referring, I assume, to Article I of Protocol II, which says,
"This Protocol, which develops and supplements [Common] Article 3...without modifying its existing conditions or application, shall apply to all armed conflicts which are not covered by Article I of [Protocol I]...and which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol."
I do not see this as limiting the scope of CA3, especially since it says right there in the text that it doesn't. At best, you might say that Protocol II itself doesn't apply to the current conflicts -- but then, that still leaves CA3 intact. If Protocol II does apply to the current conflicts, the protections of Article 4 of Protocol II apply (as I mentioned before) to all persons who have ceased to take part in hostilities.
Your point is stronger with respect to section 2 of Article 1, which states that "This Protocol shall not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence and other acts of a similar nature, as not being armed conflicts." Now I begin to see what you're talking about, and it is an excellent point. If you fit that back onto the Conventions, then our current conflicts would be maybe-maybe not armed conflicts depending on how well-coordinated they were (a nationwide resistance movement would make it armed conflict; various isolated and angry, but tiny, rebel groups would not)(I think the Nicaraguan Contras would fit the armed conflict definition even though they didn't operate by controlling territory...they had the power to do so and that was enough).
I'm disinclined to use Protocol II, precisely because we haven't signed onto it, and it's the US Constitution that makes the Geneva conventions "law" over us. But the case for not applying Geneva is stronger than I thought. Thanks!
I can see a good reason for *not* adopting the Protocol right there...the Fallujah thugs held a bit of territory and carried out sustained operations if "sustained" isn't all that long...but would that make all the fighting in Iraq armed conflict, or would it be armed conflict with respect to them and not with respect to other sympathetic parties? The character of the conflict could change from day to day, and without good intelligence we wouldn't be able to know which it was.
Joseph,
Although I think Protocol II can be helpful for filling in gaps for interpreting CA3, I certainly do not think the U.S. should ratify it. You have touched on some of the very reasons in your last post.
On a somewhat related note, I think the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated that in certain respects the Geneva Conventions are somewhat antiquated and need to be updated to reflect the reality of low intensity conflicts and those that are captured while participating in them. It is increasingly clear that the Conventions were drafted with an eye to conflicts characterized by those of the last two centuries.
Bowmanguy
Been away for several days and I don't know if you're still checking here, but I'll try.
I did a little research and as far as I could find US sanctions against South Africa covered military and computer equipment, travel and new investment. I also found an article that said military sanctions against South Africa only resulted in the growth of a larger South African weapons industry.
I didn't see anything about a connection between sanctions and black deaths.
It also seems that the Iraq sanctions were different in so far as the Iraq covered many necessary food and drug items, whereas I don't see anything similar in the South African sanctions.
Must run. will finish this later.
And that was where Oil for Food came in, to address the hunger problem. Many were calling for "smart sanctions" that would keep military techonology out of Iraq, but not food and medicine. (Make you a deal, if you don't bring up how OfF actually worked, I won't bring up how the war actually worked out, ok).
So I see a fundamental difference between SA and Iraq sanctions, based on what I've read, if you have a source on your assertion about sanctions related deaths in Iraq I be interested in seeing it.
And Joel
Not so Pollyannish. For instance, it should now be clear that the combination of no fly zones, a continued military presence in the area, sanctions and inspectors convinced Saddam to get rid of his WMD's. So it's a step in the right direction.
And I agree that when war is necessary "it must be done so to win as decisively and quickly as possible," which is more or less in agreement with the Catholic theory of Just War. But there is a lot more about being somewhat humane about the whole thing.
Now, to a point I made earlier, the reaction of Congressmen and Senators from both parties made it clear that what was published about Abu Ghraib was not the whole story and not the worst of it. So you and I can split hairs about what we know of being torture or not, but I believe we need to know the whole story.
There is also the larger issue of what methods are used against whom. The supposition is that we using these methods against terrorists. But remember that after the story broke, we released hundreds of guys from that prison. To my mind, this confirms the stories that said many of these guys were picked up on "sweeps" and held on no particular charge. Harsh techniques or torture or whatever, none of it will work on somebody who doesn't know anything.
A strategic dilemma...when something evil comes out, you want to make a gesture to show you're doing something about it; but the gesture looks like admitting to something larger...
Or covering it up.
Commenting by HaloScan
