In keeping with one of our festive holiday topics of last week—torture (see here and here if you missed the posts previously)—I thought I should share with you this piece by Charles Krauthammer, from the December 5 issue of the Weekly Standard. From “The Truth about Torture”:
DURING THE LAST FEW WEEKS in Washington the pieties about torture have lain so thick in the air that it has been impossible to have a reasoned discussion. The McCain amendment that would ban “cruel, inhuman, or degrading” treatment of any prisoner by any agent of the United States sailed through the Senate by a vote of 90-9. The Washington establishment remains stunned that nine such retrograde, morally inert persons–let alone senators–could be found in this noble capital.
Now, John McCain has great moral authority on this issue, having heroically borne torture at the hands of the North Vietnamese. McCain has made fine arguments in defense of his position. And McCain is acting out of the deep and honorable conviction that what he is proposing is not only right but is in the best interest of the United States. His position deserves respect. But that does not mean, as seems to be the assumption in Washington today, that a critical analysis of his “no torture, ever” policy is beyond the pale.
Krauthammer then distinguishes between three classes of prisonor: 1) the battlefield capture 2) the captured terrorist, and 3) the captured terrorist presumed to have information useful to those who captured him (or her).
Of the first of these, Krauthammer writes:
There is no question that he is entitled to humane treatment. Indeed, we have no right to disturb a hair on his head. His detention has but a single purpose: to keep him hors de combat. The proof of that proposition is that if there were a better way to keep him off the battlefield that did not require his detention, we would let him go.
Because the only purpose of detention in these circumstances is to prevent the prisoner from becoming a combatant again, he is entitled to all the protections and dignity of an ordinary domestic prisoner–indeed, more privileges, because, unlike the domestic prisoner, he has committed no crime. He merely had the misfortune to enlist on the other side of a legitimate war. He is therefore entitled to many of the privileges enjoyed by an ordinary citizen–the right to send correspondence, to engage in athletic activity and intellectual pursuits, to receive allowances from relatives–except, of course, for the freedom to leave the prison.
Of the second group, captured terrorists, Krauthammer argues:
A terrorist is by profession, indeed by definition, an unlawful combatant: He lives outside the laws of war because he does not wear a uniform, he hides among civilians, and he deliberately targets innocents. He is entitled to no protections whatsoever. People seem to think that the postwar Geneva Conventions were written only to protect detainees. In fact, their deeper purpose was to provide a deterrent to the kind of barbaric treatment of civilians that had become so horribly apparent during the first half of the 20th century, and in particular, during the Second World War. The idea was to deter the abuse of civilians by promising combatants who treated noncombatants well that they themselves would be treated according to a code of dignity if captured–and, crucially, that they would be denied the protections of that code if they broke the laws of war and abused civilians themselves.
Breaking the laws of war and abusing civilians are what, to understate the matter vastly, terrorists do for a living. They are entitled, therefore, to nothing […] Even though terrorists are entitled to no humane treatment, we give it to them because it is in our nature as a moral and humane people. And when on rare occasions we fail to do that, as has occurred in several of the fronts of the war on terror, we are duly disgraced.
The norm, however, is how the majority of prisoners at Guantanamo have been treated. We give them three meals a day, superior medical care, and provision to pray five times a day. Our scrupulousness extends even to providing them with their own Korans, which is the only reason alleged abuses of the Koran at Guantanamo ever became an issue. That we should have provided those who kill innocents in the name of Islam with precisely the document that inspires their barbarism is a sign of the absurd lengths to which we often go in extending undeserved humanity to terrorist prisoners.
…Which brings us, finally, to the third class of detainee: the terrorist with information. Krauthammer trots out the familiar hypothetical of the nuclear device and only five minutes to find where it is to be detonated. But he puts a philosophical spin on what proceeds from the premise that it is important to underscore:
even if the example I gave were entirely hypothetical, the conclusion–yes, in this case even torture is permissible–is telling because it establishes the principle: Torture is not always impermissible. However rare the cases, there are circumstances in which, by any rational moral calculus, torture not only would be permissible but would be required (to acquire life-saving information). And once you’ve established the principle, to paraphrase George Bernard Shaw, all that’s left to haggle about is the price. In the case of torture, that means that the argument is not whether torture is ever permissible, but when–i.e., under what obviously stringent circumstances: how big, how imminent, how preventable the ticking time bomb.
That is why the McCain amendment, which by mandating “torture never” refuses even to recognize the legitimacy of any moral calculus, cannot be right. There must be exceptions. The real argument should be over what constitutes a legitimate exception.
This is an interesting corollary to the discussion we had the other day over how best to define method. Here, Krauthammer is not making a context-based claim so much as he is wanting to define the conditions under which torture is appropriate given the infinitude of potential circumstances.
He continues:
Let’s Take An Example that is far from hypothetical. You capture Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Pakistan. He not only has already killed innocents, he is deeply involved in the planning for the present and future killing of innocents. He not only was the architect of the 9/11 attack that killed nearly three thousand people in one day, most of them dying a terrible, agonizing, indeed tortured death. But as the top al Qaeda planner and logistical expert he also knows a lot about terror attacks to come. He knows plans, identities, contacts, materials, cell locations, safe houses, cased targets, etc. What do you do with him?
We have recently learned that since 9/11 the United States has maintained a series of “black sites” around the world, secret detention centers where presumably high-level terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed have been imprisoned. The world is scandalized. Black sites? Secret detention? Jimmy Carter calls this “a profound and radical change in the . . . moral values of our country.” The Council of Europe demands an investigation, calling the claims “extremely worrying.” Its human rights commissioner declares “such practices” to constitute “a serious human rights violation, and further proof of the crisis of values” that has engulfed the war on terror. The gnashing of teeth and rending of garments has been considerable.
I myself have not gnashed a single tooth. My garments remain entirely unrent. Indeed, I feel reassured. It would be a gross dereliction of duty for any government not to keep Khalid Sheikh Mohammed isolated, disoriented, alone, despairing, cold and sleepless, in some godforsaken hidden location in order to find out what he knew about plans for future mass murder.
[…]
According to Newsweek, in the ticking time bomb case McCain says that the president should disobey the very law that McCain seeks to pass–under the justification that “you do what you have to do. But you take responsibility for it.” But if torturing the ticking time bomb suspect is “what you have to do,” then why has McCain been going around arguing that such things must never be done?
[…] As Evan Thomas and Michael Hirsh put it in the Newsweek report on McCain and torture, the McCain standard would “presumably allow for a sliding scale” of torture or torture-lite or other coercive techniques, thus permitting “for a very small percentage–those High Value Targets like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed–some pretty rough treatment.”
But if that is the case, then McCain embraces the same exceptions I do, but prefers to pretend he does not. If that is the case, then his much-touted and endlessly repeated absolutism on inhumane treatment is merely for show. If that is the case, then the moral preening and the phony arguments can stop now, and we can all agree that in this real world of astonishingly murderous enemies, in two very circumscribed circumstances, we must all be prepared to torture. Having established that, we can then begin to work together to codify rules of interrogation for the two very unpleasant but very real cases in which we are morally permitted—indeed morally compelled—to do terrible things.
Many of these points were made in last weeks’ discussions—that, when push comes to shove, in the most severe cases we will make a determination to break the laws, anyway. Krauthammer’s argument is that it would be better to acknowledge this and pre-describe the conditions wherein we would allow certain specific types of coercive behavior (much as I described a desire to define what those specific actions might be) rather than pretending to a degree of feel-good self-righteousness—that we then codifying it into law—that would put in legal jeopardy those who perform the very actions the majority of us agree we’d expect them to perform if the conditions dictate.
This is simply a way of lying to ourselves. And worse—it is a lie that has the effect of shutting down a rigorous debate on the topic.
****
(h/t Tom Pechinski)
Man, people don’t miss a thing atound here!
But Jeff, torture is bad. M-kay?
Does anybody here know if there is such a thing as an effective truth serum?
Thanks
StevenT,
“Officially” I don’t know of one, but I think a concoction of 50% Oleoresin Capsicum injected under the skin just inside the urethral opening would be relatively effective.
‘Course that’s just my speculation.
TW: nation
…of overcivilized wusses
Good Lord, this debate is getting silly.
It’s just another case of the left muddying the waters in order to distract from the first principles in this war. Just like Halliburton, just like WP, just like Abu Grahib. The list goes on and on.
What the blowhards in the Senate, and the pussies in the press fail to see is that torture policy as it applies to terrorists is simply a silly sideshow as it applies to domestic politics.
What matters is not how McCain or Dr. Cornholio de la Voodoo feels about the policy.
What matters is how the terrorists feel.
Put yourself in Abu’s place. You’ve just been pinched with an IED detonator or a huge wad of cash. You are expecting to get your ass kicked with extreme prejudice. That’s part of the deal you sign when you become a terrorist. When that does not happen, you’re dissoriented, for about 15 minutes. After that, you start to chuckle quietly. Then you laugh out loud. Now you’re on your way to becoming a hard case. You’re flinging feces at guards, organizing escape attempts, and telling your interrogators nothing. Absolutely nothing. After a year or two, the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, Michael Moore, and Cynthia Mckinney get you sprung from prison. You’re back in Pakistan, and you can’t believe what just happened. They didn’t do shit. They must be fairies or something. What’s to stop you from going right back to blowing up hospitals etc? Answer? Nothing.
The thing Krauthammer is most right about is that our government would be totally negligent if they were NOT putting the screw to these guys. Absent that, the only responsible thing to do is off them at the time of capture. At least then you won’t find the same fucks coming back at you later.
Sorry this got so long. I got on a roll.
“history” – If we’re not careful, ours is going to run out.
Does anybody here know if there is such a thing as an effective truth serum?
Kool-aid makes DNC talking points seem true, if you swill enough of it.
I find it hard to take the left seriously on this topic. It’s just another cynical angle to bring down BUSHITLER and his band of EVILGENIUSIDIOTS.
You don’t want torture? Super! Define it and we can talk!
Simple, torture is defined as giving a miscreant such an owie that they will fess up to naughtiness.
I will kneecap every ninny-nanny in the room, if I must, to get at what Mr Badunov knows, that I want to know.
You sleep in your beds at night, because sociopaths like me are willing to go the extra mile to keep ourselves whole…what? You thought it was about you? I don’t care if you live or die. I care a lot about me, though.
What’s a ninny-nanny?
You guys for torture are no better than the terrorists themselves. Barbaric.
“Sir, have you no sense of decency?”
Very well argued, Tillman.
No bow down before me and accept Allah, or I’ll slice your fucking head off.
I can’t tell… Is that irony or self parody?
Tillman –
If you’re serious, you’re seeing this as a person, when you should be seeing it as a man. These are men we’re fighting, evil men to be sure, but men nonetheless. The concept of “personhood” is a 20th century liberal/feminist one. Works very well in places where they don’t saw your head off for being of the wrong faith.
In places where they do shit like that, not so well.
“running” – the clock is running, do we really have time for this argument?
The reality of the problem has been evident all along, but no politician is willing to actually take a stand and define anything meaningful. There is always a moral conundrum present in the act of declaring war (one of the reasons that Congress never bothers to do it), and it is basically this, by declaring war (or allowing a police action, etc.) the government is also declaring that a number of things that are morally questionable, when viewed out of context, are now permissible albeit within constraints (e.g, the Rules of Engagement). For example, in normal civilized Western countries discharging firearms with the intent to kill is not allowed and severe penalties accrue to those who violate this norm. In a combat zone, the appropriate discharge of firearms in both defensive and offensive situations is not only allowed, but necessary and encouraged for survival. This sort of argument seems to me to apply as well to the case of torture, with constraints defining when it is considered permissible. Since we are dealing with very dangerous people, and the power of modern weapons is so immense, I cannot see how anyone could establish an absolute prohibition against the use of torture.
A very legitimate definition of illegal combatant was made early on to establish that there was indeed a class of enemies that by definition did not abide by nor agree to the principle of any constraining rules of engagement (such as the Geneva Convention). This reality has been amply demonstrated on the nightly news. If people such as this believe that we will not take any punitive action against them whatsoever, under any circumstances, there is no way they will ever cooperate and offer up any information. My belief is that one of the moral exceptions that gets made during war is that one of “us†is worth just a little bit more than one of “themâ€Â; consequently, if I seriously believe that one of “them†has significant information that could prevent numbers of “us†from being killed, maimed, irradiated, etc., I could authorize torture.
Tillman–as you know, torture doesn’t work as an interrogation method. Since Jeff & everyone else here are talking about interrogation methods which would be effective–and not simply the sadistic abuse of prisoners–they must not be talking about torture.
The arguments are available. I’m sure you’ve probably heard most of them. But I’ll try to think of some maybe you haven’t considered.
If our intelligence is so bad we believed Curveball, then our intelligence isn’t even good enough to know who to torture in the first place.
If we got through WWII without torture – why do we need it now? Our whole country was at stake in that war. Not so now.
We have a history of being the good guys – you don’t seem to care if you piss off the whole world. To me, that is completely wrong. We’re not strong enough to take on the whole world anyway – get a grip.
Off Topic,sorry…Just went into Daily douche(Kos) for the first time and read the comments to the Ann Coulter post.This is straight jacket central!There is someone in ther trying to prove that Ann is a man………..too strange even for this place!
TW reading I was READING those comments and my IQ dropped 20 points……
Oh for chrissakes…
I was simply surfing, came in for visit, read the above entry and had to put in my two cents regarding the concept of “personhood” ala twentieth century liberal feminism. What the…?
Seems to me the issue is more about faith and the evils generated on its behalf.
Think I’ll stop by here more often.
I agree with Tillman. Let’s not deal with with the ugliness. Let’s just start incinerating entire countries – forget about distinguishing the good from the bad, just bomb them all and let Allah sort them out. Afterall, if it meets the World War II standard, it must be good.
On a serious note, we probably should have stuck to the Geneva convention from the very beginning.
Anybody out of uniform – do whatever you like with him, then dispatch him. Unfortunately, we played nice from the beginning and let them raise the standard. Should have let them argue down from there.
Hindsight, yeck.
Tillman –
You may or may not be right about WWII. I do know that the concensus among govt. and the press was to let the military take care of things. I also know that in the only case I know of where illegal comabatants were captured, (the German sabotouers coming ashore via submarine on the east coast), said Germans were executed.
And as for being the “good guys”, who exactly are you trying to impress? The Europeans? The corrupt, oil bribe taking Europeans? Please. The Chinese? Do you really think good intentions count with the Chinese? Sorry to burst your bubble, but the only things that count for these people are cash and power. This is a struggle between grown-ups, but half of our people insist on acting like 5th grade girls.
“post” – toasty, like a lot of my friends did.
Yeah, a lot of civilians were killed – but oddly enough, we didn’t torture our prisoners. (Or at least if we did, we weren’t stupid enough to publicly admit it – which is even worse.)
“If we got through WWII without torture”
How do you know?
Tillman: at least read the post before you comment.
Who’s admitting anything?
We’ve just got a fifth collumn made up of people like you that does everything to besmirch the name of their own country, and then whine that other people don’t like them.
Hold up. I realize I’m new here and maybe I’m the little kid pointing out the Emperor is naked but do you folks really believe the US hasn’t and doesn’t routinely engage in less than acceptable activities? You guys (or girls) really believe some words (ala Geneva Convention) halt such behavior despite their best intention?
It’s a game, right? A flippin’ toss of the power and econ game with a flamethrower of belief tossed in for good measure, n’cest pas?
That’s right psycho, I said it. It may not be an especially comfortable notion for you, but up till a certain point in history, (1970 or so), men looked after the fighting part of international relations everywhere. If you’ll stop grinding your atheists’ axe for a moment and look around, you’ll see that we have now given people who have no conception of what fighting on any level is like, unless you count debates in court or at the student union, a seat at the table where life and death decisions are made. Decisions regarding a fight against a rather large enemy who has no idea what being a liberal society means. To these men, it just makes you weak. And they will saw your head off for that crack you made about faith and the evils it generates.
My point, exactly.
You do remember Kissinger’s tabletalk regarding all that bombing we did, don’t you?
We are not now, nor have we ever been, “clean”.
APF, I’m mainly reacting to the gung-ho commeters rather than the post itself. But you do have a point. Jeff, this isn’t really directed at you; but to some of your entourage here.
It’s that kind of black-hearted hatred of anyone not American that will help seal our downfall. Don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying that we have to just love everybody. But the belief that everyone else is bad leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy. With an attitude like that, it will be more likely that you’ll treat other people worse (like you know – torture or something) and they will end up hating you and wanting to destroy you.
When did your point become “we’ve never been clean”?
Last time I checked you were blaming everything on religion and trying to carve yourself out some moral high ground and even throwing in some French for good measure.
There isn’t a lot of high ground to be had at this time and place, psycho. What there is is a very large, very serious, very deadly war for survival going on. Going back to my point about liberals/feminists, I’d rather leave things like war to hard men, and let the debating society have a crack at it when it’s over.
…and belief, their faith. This is VERY significant for “these” people. “They” will do almost anything towards this end.
Our country and others enjoining us are myopic (and incredibly stupid,in my humble opinion) by not adequately factoring this into the equation. Read Sam Harris: “The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason”.
Good night.
Yeah – Hard men who’ve really been in war like Cheney and Bush! Oh, wait…
Psycho, I think you’ll fit in well. There’s not many people here who avoid real world realities in favor of wishful thinking and feel good platitudes.
Oh Tillman,
Did I say I hate these people? “black hearted hatred for anyone not American”? Where did you get that shit?
Please don’t drag that old Clintonian chestnut in here. Simply taking a different position does not make me “black hearted”. Jesus, I can’t believe you even tried that one.
I can see the difference between governments acting in what they think are their own geopolitical interests, and the people they rule, who may or may not have a say in the matter. Your trying to paint me as Black Bart is a canard. As if I were to call you a pussy because of the positions you’ve taken. Should we just forget about the issues and have a little pissing contest now?
“why” – do these people always confuse dissagreement with hate.
heh heh…funny.
I might be the biggest “realist” here and you are obviously not listening to what I’m saying.
I did not say I am against war or torture…only asking you folks to consider the perspectives from which you speak.
Sheesh.
Now it’s good night and good luck.
Rick, when you say “who exactly are you trying to impress?” it sounded as if you couldn’t care less who you ticked off.
If I misunderstood, I apologize.
“why†– do these people always confuse dissagreement with hate.
Because it is easier to assume the moral high ground and avoid debate on merits.
“Chickenhawk,” “torture,” “moral authority of Sheehan/McCain/Hawkish Congressman” – all appeals to emotion rather than actual reason.
We of course do it too, sometimes, but not nearly as much.
Because they hate people who disagree with them.
This is the important part of Krauthammer’s piece:
We need to scream this over and over until the thickest moonbat understands, or we well and truly may be fucked.
What’s interesting is that use of coercive methods for Islamic terrorists is nothing new. I watched a History Channel program the other night about the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983. They interviewed several CIA and Army interrogators from that incident. They used sleep and food deprivation and other coercive methods and didn’t think twice about it. Nor did they sound the least bit guilty about it. From reading Andrew Sullivan, Daily KOs, etc. you’d think this just started under the Bush administration.
I don’t hate Rickinstl – I don’t even know him or her and the debate thus far has been mostly tame.
YES!, Bob and Dr.B Moe…at last.
I may rest in peace.
Tillman –
What you misunderstood is that I was talking about governments as opposed to populations. Governments which control the flow of information to the population in many cases. I don’t hate the populations. I despise the actions of the criminals in their governments and the fools in their “press”.
Whatever, what counts for me is the best interests of me and mine. Those best interests are linked with the best interests of the U.S. So, when we start talking about life and death, I really don’t give a shit what Chirac or Putin think.
And I appreciate the apology.
Bob, I believe that people (like myself) are more upset with torture like water-boarding.
When did water boarding become torture?
We do it to our own people in training.
“ways” – we have ways of making you talk.
man, that’s cripple-shooting.
When I read
I took it as referring to terrorists. Tillman takes it to refer to black-hearted hatred of anyone not American I don’t even wonder why he’d make that leap.
Rickinstl, people in our own training are told that they are about to be drowned and then forced under water? Surely not.
I don’t honestly understand the actual point of this whole debate.
Do we “torture” in the United States? Yes. We always have and we always will. Why? Because it works. We know this because we have documented it over and over and over again – not only from our own experiences, but the experiences of our own people who have been tortured (like, say, many, many of our soldiers captured and tortured in Vietnam).
Are there methods of “torture” we will not use? Without a doubt. We haven’t used them. We will never use them. They exist on the side of a line we just won’t cross. No one is arguing that we should cross the line to those methods.
So what we seem to be worrying like a ingrown hair are those methods which exist on the edge of that line like waterboarding, faux death experiences, and extreme psychological distress. They’re close. Depending on your point of view and your particular goal in the debate, you could nudge them to one side or the other of that line.
No one, by the way, is honestly arguing that those methods aren’t effective. They can’t because we know that when a professional interrogator uses them, they work very, very well. So what is it that we’re actually arguing? I don’t get it.
Except Senator McCain.
Tillman, I don’t even know that he’s arguing that they aren’t effective. He’s saying that we shouldn’t do them, regardless of their effectiveness.
That honestly surprises me because John McCain, of all the Senators, ought to know what torture is and is not, since he was actually tortured.
Routinely? Absolutely not.
We have engaged from time to time in “less than acceptable activites.” Some downright despicible.
What I don’t think you appreciate is the lengths to which we go to prevent and avoid these. You ought to sit in on ata least the the annual “Laws and Customs of Land Warfare” briefing I have to attend.
Jimmie,
What we have here is folks more or less like Tilman. They claim to be “multiculturalists”, but in fact they’re chauvinistic to the point of bigotry. They look around at their soft, regular life, surrounded by the impedimenta of academia or a nice safe office job at moonbat central, and project the attitudes they have on everybody in the world, right down to the Andaman Islanders and New Guinea tribesmen from so far back in the mountains they don’t even have installment buying.
One of the things that squicks them is other people’s opinions. They know damn well they’re useless in any reasonable analysis, so they’re desperate that others should give them compliments, and they spend a lot of time complimenting themselves for “sensitivity”, meaning assuming that any random Mongolian (e.g.) will be just as horrified by trivialities as they are and must be soothed by concessions.
Another squick factor is violence. They’ve taught themselves to be “pacifists”, meaning that they assume that any danger they might be in is taken care of by somebody else, leaving them free to insult the ones who actually do it as “uncultured” or worse. One of their tenets is that standing up to a bully is violent, and therefore just as vile as the bully is and equally punishable. They are then astonished at the increase in violence resulting from their having validated the punishment the bully handed out to his victim.
I have become reconciled to all this. One of the functions of an army is to be scary; if it’s scary enough it doesn’t have to be used to hurt people and break things. That’s no fun for us right-wing death beast warmongers. What a ban on torture does is convince people that Americans aren’t scary, which is effectively a blank check to attack and kill Americans. That means that we’ll get attacked a lot, and only the lunatic fringe thinks we can’t respond to attack, so we’ll get to hurt a lot of people and break a lot of things in future. It’ll be fun, no?
And the best, the very best, part of all that is that, for the people who’re currently wanting to attack us, the things the Tilmans hold dear—gay marriage, women’s rights, the whole gamut of left-liberal ideals—are absolutely anathema, pure vileness. It’s them al Qaida wants to kill in job lots, so we’ll have not only a chance to warmong, our excuse for doing so will be the bleeding bodies of moonbats.
Joyous times a-comin’, folks. I can hardly wait.
Regards,
Ric
tw: outside. Think outside the box a bit.
POW’s deserve protections. Terrorists generally do not, and I’d allow limited use of “physical means” with the clear intent to get needed battlefield intel. I don’t expect to hear about it, however – learn to dispose of the evidence, boys.
As for members of Al Quaeda – the group that slaughtered some 3000 of my countrymen to make a stupid political point – no mercy. If we catch the Z-man, for instance, I think it might be educational in some quarters if he was to turn up in Damascus with every square inch of his skin flayed off – except for his face.
Tilman–
I wasn’t talking about you, I was talking about others like Andrew Sullivan who define anything they don’t like as “torture”. I have problems with waterboarding also. I think it gets to close to the line, but I don’t know if I’m against it. That’s the problem that I have with this debate–what is and isn’t “torture”.
I’m struggling with it and it appears you are too. My problem is with some critics (and yes, I’m referring again to Andrew Sullivan) who won’t even define their terms as to what is and isn’t torture.
Here’s my proposal:
Torture is not a good thing, and if we are to use it in any case, it needs to be limited. We don’t any sort of slippery slope where 2nd Lts. in the field start doing it. It should only be used at the very highest level, and only after other techniques fail. Thus, there would only a few facilities with a hard limit for number of ‘patients.”
The rest of the system is not allowed to use torture or torture-lite (water-boarding.) They can use other techniques (sleep deprivation, etc.) But again, I would even separate those facilities out from standard Geneva facilities and require a ‘transfer’ to a harder facility. The main reason is to keep track of who can do what, and monitor them.
This is interesting:
Elements of Crime as contained in the finalised draft prepared by the fifth session of the Preparatory Commission for the International Court (PrepCom) held in New York from June 12 to 30 2000:
Article 8 (2) (a) (ii)-1
War crime of torture
Elements
The perpetrator inflicted severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon one or more persons.
The perpetrator inflicted the pain or suffering for such purposes as: obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation or coercion or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind.
Such person or persons were protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that protected status.
The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.
Article 8 (2) (a) (ii)-2
War crime of inhuman treatment
Elements
The perpetrator inflicted severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon one or more persons.
Such person or persons were protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that protected status.
The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.
In each case, despite not defining torture, it does make the protection of the Geneva Convention a required element.
Tillman–
Water-boarding is used in SEAL BUDs, S/E/R/E and other military training. People do die during training, and they aren’t told ahead of time that everything is just make-believe and if they close their eyes and open them they will be snug and safe in their bunks. Ever hear of a live-fire exercise?
Bob–
I submit that any technique used on our own guys is safe enough to be used on terrorists. Period.
Don’t forget that as illegal combatants, they could have just as easilyâ€â€and legallyâ€â€been given a quick battlefield hearing to determine their status and shot on the spot. Every extra day in custody they receive is one they aren’t entitled to.
P.S. If this bill passes the House and Bush vetoes it, what’s the over/under on how many moonbat heads will explode?
Fresh Air,
You couldn’t be more wrong. The Geneva Conventions (1949 Common Article Three) specifically prohibit summary execution.
Here is the text:
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, at 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.
Unlike most other provisions of the GC, this one makes no distinctionas to teh classification of the individuals covered, e.g.: combatant, non-combatant, civilain, POW….
It covers all individuals who are hors de combat.
Yours is a misconception that continues to circulate as “common knowledge” despite all best efforts to inform otherwise. I correct new privates on this far more frequently than I would like. Another notion, equally wrong forthe same reason is that spies or saboteurs are subject to summary execution.
I thought Krauthammer’s article was cogent and morally and logically unassailable. Routine torture?…no. He lays out the case that it would be immoral NOT to torture in certain cases that he defines very well. Case closed.
Tillman writes pretty well for someone with the brainpower of a Kos Kiddie, but his/her/its arguments go beyond moonbattery to idiocy. I like John McCain, but he is decidely wrong in this case. We are not dealing with an enemy here who respects anything civilized, never mind the Geneva conventions. All they see when we do things like limit ourselves is weakness. Perceived weakness on our part encourages them and was one of the factors leading up to 9/11. I don’t give a rat’s ass what the Europeans or Jimmy Carter think.
I have three principles for dealing with terrorists:
1) No mercy.
2) No prisoners.
3) No survivors
I’m willing to make an exception for #2 in the case of someone who holds high value information about other terrorists and their planned actions. #1 still applies, and #3 is optional once the information is extracted. Terrorists have by definition forfeited their right to be treated as humans.
I have no quarrel with the Geneva Conventions, but they are not aplicable in most of these situations, and even in McCain’s opinion would be superceded in grave emergency if necesssary. We ARE the good guys, and we go far out of our way to be humane, even in cases where it is unwarranted, but if we take extreme options off the table (knowing full well they would be applied only in extreme situations—remember we’re the good guys, despite what America haters on the left and in the media say), we give the bad guys a powerful weapon. That and 5th columnists like Tillman are how we could lose the war and civilization.
The Kos like jump to black hatred of all non-Americans is hilarious—and stupid. I hate terrorists, I don’t hate anyone for not being an American, not even moonbats for the other side like Tillman and Kos.
TW = reason. As in, being able to reason is useless if you have no understanding of the facts you’re reasoning about.
RTO Trainer quotes the Geneva Convention: “Persons taking no active part in the hostilities . . . shall in all circumstances be treated humanely”, and then suggests that this applies to captured al Qaeda. It quite obviously doesn’t apply to them, since they spend their time actively trying to kill soldiers and civilians.
Or is this supposed to be some sort of technicality, where typical al Qaeda actions don’t count as “combat” and therefore they can kill and mutilate to their hearts’ content without “taking an active part in combat”? That can’t be right, because it would give those who violate the G.C. themselves more rights than those who comply with it.
A major benefit to Krauthammer’s idea would be a small group of well trained effective interrogators who can extract information without permanent damage to the detainee.
A major problem with the McCain approach (do what you have to do illegally and cover it up) is that the methods will be less effective, more destructive and survival of the detainee is unlikely (no witnesses).
Should I be surprised how little emphasis is placed upon the qualifications that must be met before the subject is eligible for the protections afforded by the Geneva Convention?
The GC was intended to limit activities between two warring governmnets, acknowledging that warfare is inevitible, and attempting to establish standards of warfare that were as humane as possible, considering the underlying fact that war is at best an unsavory circumstance. It was directed at soldiers in the service of their respective nations, who were subject to the command of their respective nations’ leaders. Its provisions and limitations have no place in a conflict such as the one in which we are currently engaged, as the force with which we are at war is not tied to any political body that could issue a surrender. The combatants against which we fight do not follow the Geneva Convention guidelines, nor do they fall under its protections.
We should approach conflict with these individuals with an intent to exerminate every one of them, by any means neccessary, until there aren’t any left to fight, then stand steadfast by our decision to do such, without even a nod to limitations established by a nonapplicable treaty.
TW: simple (how appropriate)
I agree wholeheartedly with nolo contendres remarks. I do not trust John McCain, I believe him to be an arrogant opportunist who has been corrupted from being in Washington DC too long. I believe that after information has been obtained from terrorist detainees they should be returned to their country, be it Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan or Canada. They would be returned healthy…..minus their arms, legs, sight, speech, and hearing. That is what the Chinese opium pirates would do to informants and spies. That may give future terrorists pause. To win this war on the West, on freedom, I believe we will have to go as low or lower, until Islam is no longer attractive as a religion.
My problem is I don’t see how any real man could worry about the definition of torture and detainees rights when interogating the cretins responsible for things like this.
As far as I am concerned nothing is off-limits when dealing with this level of evil. Nothing.
Take the plain meaning of the thing and it shoud become clear. This provision applies to all once they have been detained.
No. It’s ground well covered long before.
It is clear that GC protections do not adhere to illegal combatants. There remains, however, a minimum standard that applies to even these in General Article Three.
So you would advocate using booby-trapped toys ourselves to kill off the children of, say ranking al-Qaeda members?
I’m betting that there is a line you don’t beleive we should cross.
Uh, no. I was refering to the two cretins driving the car with the booby trapped toys. Assuming they know where the toys came from, and who may have been responsible, I would show no fucking mercy in getting information from them. I seriously doubt that children anywhere would fit the definition of “…the cretins responsible for things like this…” so I don’t advocate the random maiming of children for the purpose of gaining intelligence.
Is that clear enough?
But the cretins responisble may have children and the guys drivng the truck may have children and you are willing to do anything. The welfare of their own children would likely provide a fair amount of leverage. You would use that leverage? Threaten their children, actually or rhetorically?
RTO–
As others have already pointed out, it is you who are incorrect. Illegal combatants are not covered by the Geneva Conventions, and could, in fact, never be covered by them since they couldn’t possibly be a signatory thereto.
I don’t see what your riff is all about, frankly. I made a throw-away comment that we didn’t have to treat terrorists fairly, and you get all soaped-up and start quoting the Geneva Conventions (wrongly, in fact). Get a grip, man!
Of course we treat them betterâ€â€and always will. But that doesn’t mean we have an obligation to do so.
I was refering to the two cretins driving the car with the booby trapped toys.
That is all I can do for you dude, if that isn’t plain enough I can’t help you. Maybe JG can increase the font size or something.
b moe, i think rto’s been spending too long over at john cole’s place. i’m sorry i haven’t been here enough to keep him distracted.
tw: hell, well, hopefully it won’t get that bad.
RTO Trainer — You’re mistaken. The articles you’re citing apply only to protected persons, which are defined by Article 4 and 5. Members of groups which operate without a clear insignia visible at a distance, members of groups who are not themselves signatories or which do not accept the conventions and treat belligerents accordingly, and combatants who are nationals of non-belligerent powers, are not protected.
Since the people we’re talking about (1) don’t have a distinguishing uniform visible at a distance, (2) are not members of groups signatory to the Conventions, (3) do not themselves obey the Conventions, and (4) are often nationals of other countries, eg, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc, they’re not protected persons under the Conventions.
Thank you for playing.
RTO, that only applies if you don’t go on in Article 4 and 5, which define who isn’t protected.
TW: “parts”, as in “read the parts you don’t agree with too, you ninny.”
Charlie (Colo.)–
You said what I would have said if I wasn’t so lazy. I fail to see what’s so hard to understand about treaties requiring both parties to sign and abide by them. Nothing more than contract law on an international scale.
I thought I was done with this thread, but just read something very interesting (posted by Tillman)
“If we got through WWII without torture – why do we need it now? Our whole country was at stake in that war. Not so now.”
How revealing. I think Tillman talks for many on the left who think that the Islamofascists are nothing but a big joke. Apparently, an awful lot of people in this country are so fucking stupid that they think we have to be militarily defeated for this civilization to die. They are too thick and arrogant to even bother to TRY to understand just how delicate our society and economy are, and what a relatively small blow could really do to this country. A nuclear bomb or two in NYC could easily do the trick. There are just too many people like Tillman who would say: “What, me worry? The Government will be here in twenty minutes with my new house”. I think what I miss about the years that I was growing up is that stupid people KNEW they were stupid, and actually learned as they grew. Not so now, huh?
Even though they don’t believe in God, they think that freedom is something that God left here for the taking, and all you need to do is be born into it. It deserves no thought or defense because it’s just kinda “here” ya know? Jeebus! How do you argue with a brick wall?
Tillman. Just in case you are missing the point, you are a moron and should be ashamed of yourself. If you think the whole country isn’t at stake in the GWOT, you are beyond embarrassment.
Beyond the Geneva Convention, there are so many ways in which combat with the terrorists goes beyond what we faced with the Germans in WWII. Their behavior toward civilian populations was beyond barbaric, and the way they fought the Soviets was no-holds-barred on both sides, but the way the Germans fought Brits/Americans/Canadians/Aussies was actually very civilized and respectful.
How do you fight people who are willing to “surrender,” and then open fire? How do you fight people who use mosques as bases, and schools/hospitals as ammo dumps? Who use ambulances to ferry men and ordnance? Who routinely/randomly target civilians? Who have no uniforms, and represent no country? These people have fewer rules than the Japanese did in WWII.
Sure: we need to maintain the moral high ground wherever we can. None of us wants to become what we are fighting. But more importantly, we need to win. Everything–freedom, women’s rights, tolerance of gays, property rights, the ability to have a beer, the freedom for men to shave and wear their hair as they please, the right to the products of your own labor, titty bars, religious freedom, availablility of education, respect for human life–depends upon it.
With all due respect for Senator McCain, he has a history of finding solutions to imaginary problems that only make things worse in the long run. The fewer of his agenda items that succeed, the better off the country is.
Lost Dog, I hope you are not just now coming to the realization that Liberals are suicidal retards. If so, I hope you are only 14 or 15 years old.
They are like the panicking drowning victim, who will take the rescuer down with them, gulping in great freshets of water because they can’t tell the difference between water and air.
Except retards are kind of cute. Liberals are more like something you grimace at on the bottom of your shoe, and go looking for the hose.
Fresh Air,
I suggest you look it up. It’s only a part of the briefing hat I have to attend every year nad have done for the past 12 years.
Heck, I posted the text, which makes it very clear who that provision applies to.
Suffice to say that what you have stated is the inverse of what every Soldier, Sailor, Airman, Marine and Coast Guardsman is taught, or is supposed to be taught, and will result in their prosecution under the UCMJ if they act on your interpretation.
But I guess I wouldn’t know anything about it.
Now, suppose they have children. You find this out as you are interrogating them. You have state you will not exclude any tactic in extracting information. Are you then, willing to threaten those children in order to exert pressure and gain leverage on your subjects?
Charlie,
No. Articles 4 and 5 apply only to protected persons. Article 3 applies to anyone who is not taking active part in hostilities. If you have captured someone, even if they were taking active part in hostilities prior to thier capture, they are now covered by Article 3. Their status before capture or ceasing to take active part in the hostilities for whatever reason, is immaterial.
Charlie:
You are making some huge assumptions as who I am and where I stand on these issues. As such you have yet to make an accurate statement.
My agreement is not a requirment in the meaning of the document nor in who and how it binds.
I’ve had this same discussion with others who want to claim that because Article 3 applies to more than just “protected persons” that that means that Artilces 4 and 5 do as well. They are also wrong and I told them as much.
Each Article applies to whom they say they apply to. That’s one reason they are separate articles to begin with.
Besides, I’m a Democrat and a vetran. You all aren’t allowed to disagree with me.
Just in case the rest isn’t clear, I’m also one of the apparent 35% of Americans who still support the President and the War on Terror becasue I can still distinguish between right and wrong and good and evil. That I would correct you here doesn’t change any of the rest of that.
No. They are innocents . Innocent children do not qualify as evil cretins in my world. I don’t know how to make it any clearer. Do you really not understand the distinction I am making?
Then you are failing to also consider how US policy factors in. We don’t make distinctions based on who has and has not signed the GC.
That said we do, properly, strictly apply all other provisions.
If this doen’t mean that you did not mean “anything” than I guess not. I simply wnated to establish tha you did not mean that anything goes in interrogation and that there is a line you would not cross.
There are others who are not so scrupulous, who would have made the same statement and would not only threaten children of teh subjects, but persued those threats had they felt the need to back up the threat.
Even otehrs who would justify making the threats and not persuing them as being only an act against the “evil cretins” and not actually against the children.
For the record, making threats, not only against others but against the subjects of interrogation is prosecutable under the UCMJ.
RTO Trainer,
With all due respect to your position and experience, Article 2, the one you quoted presents two distinct problems to the interpretation you advocate.
The first is that it specifically applies to conflicts not of an international nature, defined more precisely as conflicts within one of the “High Contracting Parties.” In other words, this seems it would apply to a conflict between warring factions within the borders of one of the nations consigned to the Conventions. It would likely not be accepted to imply that that particular article has any relevance at all to a conflict between citizens of one nations and the citizens of another.
The second, more direct problem, is that it deliberately extends protections to military personnel who have been detained, wounded, etc., such that they can no longer participate in “armed conflict” as well as providing protections for “persons taking no active part in the hostilities.” This would seem to indicate that the protections are limited to civilians who have not been active participants, and to armed service personnel who are no longer active participants.
Again, we’re back to whether illegal combatants are protected by the Geneva conventions when their loyalty is to no nation. Consider the following: to what authority must the illegal combatants answer if they fail to keep the tenets of the Convention? If there is no authority by which disregard of the provisions of the Convention can be tried, how then would the provisions of the Convention be regarded as valid?
Again, with all due respect, a fallcy of reason, regardless how widely taught, held, or believed, is still a fallacy.
Bo–
It does apply as part and parcel of US policy–we do not make distinction as to whether a beligerant is a signatory as a minimum standard of behavior. So also with this provision, it is a minimum standard which is applied by the US regardless of the nature of the conflict. This latter policy was briefly altered between late 2002 and early 2003. Arguably the change might have been in part a cause of some of the widely reported abuses that occurred in that time.
As a blanket statement, “illegal combatants are not protected under the Geneva Conventions” is correct. Specifically the statemtn to be completely accurate is that “illegal combatants are not protected persons under the Geneva Conventions.” None of this alters US policy or the UCMJ. Both of which apply the 3rd General Article to illegal combatants, or anyone else, who is not actively engaged in combat.
For the record, how would you distinguish between an illegal combatant not actively engaged in combat and any non-combatant?
The 3rd Article does not extend protections to detained military personnel. That is done in Article 4 where the status Prisoner of War is defined.
I had no intention of having to explain how US policies came about or their justifications, only to inform as to how the policies are applied in the real world.
Let me finish by saying is that even if you conclude that the reasoning, justification or policies are fallacious, I can still be prosecuted for violating them.
Let me get this straight: you are saying that a prosecutor getting a guilty plea out of a murderer in exchange for not going for the death penalty is illegal in the UMCJ?
???
No. The prosecutor is not setting the parameters for what can happen to the defendant under the law, the law does.
The prosecutor, however, cannot offer to break fingers or to kneecap the defendant’s dependant aunt Petunia, or to have the business license of the defendant’s parent’s restarutant revoked, if the defendant doesn’t agree to a plea bargain.
Similarly, the prosecutor would be breaking the law if he were to tell the defendant that he was going to persue captial punishment in a case where capital punishment were not a legally authorized sentence for the offense. Of course the defense attorney should catch that….
You have state [sic] you will not exclude any tactic in extracting information. Are you then, willing to threaten those children in order to exert pressure and gain leverage on your subjects?
Yes. To keep my kids alive, yes, yes and yes. Enemy kids? You just don’t lead em so much.
Why is this so hard for some people?
And Bane wins an all expenses 25 years to life vacation at beautiful Ft. Leavenworth Military Correctional Barracks!
Thank you, Bane.
I just thank God that REMF bean counters are kept out of the way when rough men need to do the work of the nation.
RTO Trainer,
I’m not sure why you were so late in making the distinction between Geneva Convention restraints and the US policies of military conduct. It would have likely saved you a lot of grief and defense of your statement. For UMCJ to have gone above and beyond Geneva would be perfectly understandable, but the GC either extends protections to illegal combatants or it doesn’t.
If it doesn’t, but we do, then no problem. Just don’t contend that it’s in the GC.
Although article four does deal more specifically with POWs, this applies, albeit to detainees in a non-international conflict.
You seem to indicate that there must be some metamorphosis take place other than the taking up of arms. Your question is essentially asking whether you can tell if someone is about to commit a crime. The entirety of this debate centers upon what is to be done with those who illegally take up arms in combat after they do so.
Not proactive, reactive. And it’s easier than that. The only certain way to tell the difference is that you have detained the illegal combatant, who was actively engaged in combat, and now is otherwise indistinguishable from a non-combatant.
Reviewing what I posted, I could easly have been clearer. The origins and source of the policy though is the 3rd Article of the GC.
RTO–
The mound of pixels you dumped essentially says, “Yes, illegal combatants aren’t covered by the Geneva Conventions, though the UCMJ treats them as if they do.” I’m not a lawyer, but I would say that’s pretty much a reversal of your previous position.
I am pleased that the UCMJ goes beyond the Geneva Conventions, though I do not find it the least bit surprising.
Lookit, memos of the sort Alberto Gonzales wrote for the president establish policy, not the Army Field Manual. If we can detain illegal combatants in secret, we can damn sure shoot them on the battlefield after a hearing to establish their status. I understand that would get people in trouble vis a vis standing orders, but that is not the issue.
I’ll say it again, because you are exceptionally thick on this point: Just because we treat them well doesn’t mean we are obligated to do so.
Concede it already and get off your hobbyhorse. Whatever point you were trying to make has long since lost its relevance.
Concede it already and get off your hobbyhorse.
Stupidity backed by authority is always impervious to reason. Not gonna happen.
Krauthammer here appeals to situational or simple utilitarianism as opposed to rule utilitarianism.
In doing so, he also ignores the “give the government an inch . . . “ rule.
Fresh Air,
The sorts of memos that Alberto Gonzalez wrote at Justice are toilet paper at Defense.
Geek, I agree. If an exception can be legislated, then that exception, by legislation can be expanded.
Which, oddly is why the administration wants an exception for the CIA of the McCain amendment.
Far from wishing the CIA to be able to torture (they already are prohibited) the bill specificaly makes teh Army Field Manual the sole course of interrogation available closing off all other methods even those that are not torture. If it ain’t in the book, it can’t be done. That’s the objection.
Being “thick” on this point is what will keep me and my troops out of jail, thank you very much.
I am, as a Soldier subject to the UCMJ, obligated to treat them well.