At the risk of prompting unstable people to issue anonymous threats against his beagle, I reprint this latest from The Daily Dish:
The United States is a rogue nation that practices torture and detainee abuse and does not follow the most basic principles of the Geneva Conventions. It is inviolation of human rights agreements and the U.N. Convention against torture. It is legitimizing torture by every disgusting regime on the planet. This is a policy mandated by the president and his closest advisers. This is the signal being sent from the commander-in-chief to his troops: your enemy can be treated beyond the boundaries of what the U.S. has always abided by. When you next read of an atrocity of war-crime or victim of torture by the U.S., just keep in mind who made this possible.
Sullivan pronounces on the debased status of a once great nation in response to a story noting that the Pentagon is rewriting its training manuals to strike Geneva Convention rules against prisoner humiliation. Humiliation being a form of torture, the argument goes—which, were that true, would make junior high the equivalent (for emotionalist hysterics like Sullivan), of Abu Ghraib.
James Joyner, on the other hand, eschews the hyberpole favored by faux moralists like Sullivan (“Monogamy schmanogamy. ‘Tis simply a social construct meant to keep men from poking as many things as possible with their tumescence”*) and frames the Pentagon’s changes thus:
The Pentagon and Intelligence Community have valid concerns. For a variety of reasons, terrorists do not deserve the same level of protection as uniformed enemy prisoners of war. Further, the language of Article 3 is rather ambiguous when applied across cultures, especially the wide gulf between the West and the Muslim world.
Still, this is an incredibly hamhanded way of addressing these concerns. Even though our enemy by no means adheres to international law, our failure to do so undermines our moral authority. This is not a small thing, whether we’re talking about sustaining support at home, building coalitions with our Western partners, or even the “battle for hearts and minds†in the Arab world. That they don’t follow the Geneva protocols does not prevent our failure to do so from being used against us for propaganda purposes.
Furthermore, international law is almost invariably a matter of the United States and similarly-minded powers imposing our value system on the rest of the world, not vice versa. As such, it behooves us to live up to our agreements to maximize their legitimacy. To the extent changing circumstances make these agreements problematic, we should work to amend them.
That, however, is a can of worms we may wish to keep closed. That there is such a thing as human rights at all, let alone that they are universal, is hardly a consensus view. Seeking to clarify the rules for the sake of tailoring narrow exceptions may prove more trouble than it’s worth.
I disagree with James here on certain points, specifically, I think our tendency to define torture down to include “humiliation”, coupled with “humiliation’s” effectiveness as an interrogation tactic against an honor and shame culture, has precipitated the Pentagon’s changes (changes, it should be noted, that were agreed upon by Congress as a stipulation for signing UNCAT) moreso than some slippage of our own moral authority—which is to say, I think the changes simply pragmatic, both as a response to a Western culture so steeped in PC posturing that it has lost the ability to recognize torture and distinguish it from other (legal) techniques for gleaning information from enemy captures who are not part of some standing army (and so should not be given Geneva Convention treatment) and as an argument for the effectiveness of the techniques themselves.
Which, of course, marks me once again as an “enemy of American values,” and—to believe Sullivan—will make me at least partially culpable for the next war crime or atrocity you hear has been perpetrated by a US soldier.
Because US soldiers are, naturally, simple automatons unable to make the kinds of fine distinctions Sullivan fancies himself not only capable of, but a prominent spokesman for. Me, my knuckles drag. So I stubborly persist in my ludicrous assertion that humiliation and torture are different animals, and that to conflate the two is, in the long run, to diminish torture and raise discomfort and embarrassment (“It’s hot it here, and that offends me!”) to the same level.
Of course, Joyner raises an important point, and it’s one I’ve discussed here (in relation to both the adminstration’s response to the Mohammed Cartoon controversy and the Dubai ports deal)—namely, the importance of projecting the idea of universal human rights, even if we concede that the idea of universal human rights is itself just one of a number of competing memes.
But unlike James, I’m again not too concerned about reasonable people being able to draw the distinctions necessary here. Which is to say, I don’t think it diminishes the idea of universal human rights to suggest that certain actions have particular socially defined consequences, and that universal human rights are not at all troubled by the use of humiliation, just as universal human rights are not troubled by the use of prisons or suspension of social privileges for breaking communally sanctioned laws. And the problem with a term like “humiliation” is that is is predicated on a feeling that must of necessity be defined by those claiming to be humiliated.
Perhaps James is correct that the Pentagon’s changes are indeed hamhanded; and I’m certainly willing to discuss this point. However, a counter argument might be made that the changes are unusually up front and conspicuous—and so mark a pushback against the very slide into relativity of defining torture down.
****
update: In the comments, Karl makes a number of important points worth highlighting, especially insofar they address the kernel sticking point in this argument:
Of course Andrew didn’t quote this part of the story he blogged:
In his February 2002 order, Bush wrote that he determined that “Common Article 3 of Geneva does not apply to either Al Qaeda or Taliban detainees, because, among other reasons, the relevant conflicts are international in scope and Common Article 3 applies only to ‘armed conflict not of an international character.’ “
Some legal scholars say Bush’s interpretation is far too narrow. Article 3 was intended to apply to all wars as a sort of minimum set of standards, and that is how Geneva is customarily interpreted, they say.
Some legal scholars also want to ignore the fact that the circumstances in which we find ourselves are far from customary and not contemplated when Article 3 was drafted, but then we start the whole intentionalist thing up again.
Also missing from Andrew’s post is the fact that in signing on to the UN Convention Against Torture, the Senate specifically adopted a definition of torture consistent with the changes being made to the Field Manual now.
[…]
As for Joyner, for the reasons just noted, it’s far from clear that we’re not following Article 3 [given Bush’s 2002 distinctions and Congress’ adoption of the revisions to the field manual as a condition for signing UNCAT, both of which were meant to adhere to the GC as closely as possible while still recognizing the nature of the current enemy, and while taking into account the need for fluidity when faced with a new type of menace]. Moreover, the reason GC elsewhere requires uniforms, etc. for POW status is to encourage parties to sign onto the agreement. Joyner’s position provides no incentive for our enemies to behave in a more civilized manner. I don’t expect they would anyway, but one would think that our alliesâ€â€and Sullivan and Joynerâ€â€would recognize the principle in the first place. Oddly enough, I don’t think that those who believe the US is the Great Satan (whether running Iran, serving on some Ivy Leauge faculty or blogging for a news magazine) would have been swayed if the Field Manual remained unchanged.
And lest anyone think my last allusion to ol’ Sully is over the top, please note he called the US a rogue stateâ€â€a term the US gov’t used to denote state sponsors of terrorism.
James is correct to note that we aren’t following the plain text of Article 3 (though there is some debate about whether or not Article 3 is itself constrained and/or mitigated); however, I think it clear, too, that we are dealing with a different class of enemy than has ever been covered under GC protections—and that if we are going to expand the GC to allow for such enemies, it makes sense to first address those areas in the GC where certain protections would unnecessarily hamstring us. I don’t think allowing for humiliation as a technique to gain information—particularly when it is distinct from torture and is being done in exchange for not shooting on site out-of-uniform enemy combatants—marks the US as some sort of moral pariah. Instead, it suggests the US won’t allow protections granted to a different class of enemy to be used as a shield against us by this enemy.
****
update: More, from Kesher Talk, Signaleer, and Army Lawyer.
See also, Rob Port.
One sweet set of cocksucking lips on that beagle, though, Jeff.
I mean… c’mon. He wants it. He’s gotta Want It.
Just to bump it to Monday’s first post: Broome Community College!!!
Cordially…
I suppose that as a practical matter the United States is international law.
If you want international law enforced, rather than an opportunity to blather on and on, that is.
I’m worried about you Jeff, Sullivan is a worthless sodomite but he can find salvation through the Lord and only true God unlike you (if the commenter in the thread below is correct about your Religious status). Please repent.
Looks like more tbogg redirects in my future!
I’m with you on this one. Although there are various types and definitions (physical and mental) of torture, I hardly find playing rap music or flushing the Koran (if it ever did happen) falling under any of them. What I really enjoy about the ‘defining down of torture’ as you call it; are the future implications in case law. How many of us as teenagers took part in and/or were the subject of some sort of frustrating or humiliating hijinks? What if those actions were enough to be defined as torture, under this new definition? Furthermore, I’d also like to know what the statute of limitations is going to be; because I really don’t want to go to federal prison for running that kid’s underpants up the flagpole at summer camp in ‘92.
We need to start the Andrew Sullivan Awards for:
* Self-aggrandizing moralising
* Self-congratulatory apologies for previous statements
* Narcissistic projection of one’s own predilictions on others
Any other ideas?
Of course, we’d have to exclude Andrew himself from winning or he’d sweep them.
TW is girl. OK, not going there.
I guess all those kids that got “depantsed” in gym class were “tortured” – I know that there were definitly some that were humiliated
I’m okay with the US being a rogue nation,
I think our flagrant disregard for international treaties, conventions, and our out-and-out bloodthirstiness gives us that Che Gueverra bit of panache that’s been so desperately lacking since the days of Ike.
I mean, c’mon, how long do you think the Bush Regime will be able to keep the lid on stories of torture and humiliartion like the hundreds and thousands of illegal aliens forced to drink tap water instead of Sullivan-approved bottled?
But, seriously, is Andrew incapable of recognizing onesy-twosey situations as being onsey-twosey situations? And, further, is St. Sullivan blind to the fact that these situations are neither condoned *and* the offenders prosecuted?
.
I seem to remember about a year ago that Sullivan got all in a huff over someone (I think instapundit, but maybe it was just a link) calling him a “future Kos diarist”. It touched off one of those “how dare you claim I’m not conservative” boilerplate posts Andrew seems to have at the ready.
I just wonder how similar a post one could find on DU, DK or maybe HuffPo…just wondering.
Question- don’t we want to extend Geneva convention protections to those who fight wars (for lack of a better term) properly? You know- uniforms, fields of battle, a little less on the killing civilians of all stripes?
Not to say morality goes out the window when you don’t sign on to the contract…but if we insist fighting this generation of warfare while playing by the old rules, aren’t we setting ourselves up for a loss and just as much blood on our hands?
America is for Boring Christians only
Followed by:
For all the article’s other faults, the sloppy writing/lack of even rudimentary fact checking are most telling. That boy needs an editor. Or maybe it’s a new editor.
Lotsa tits in binders that the US is apparently reconsidering the status of “humiliation” while the UN continues to shelter those who have run rape operations while wearing blue helmets.
Dunno. Gotta figure there’s a reason for that beyond concern for human rights. I mean, if someone’s really concerned about human rights, then they’d be more concerned with, oh, the genocide in Darfur, the slave state in North Korea, or maybe Mugabe’s slow ruin of Zimbabwe, Castro’s police state, or even the conditions inside French prisons.
All that seems more critical—to be conditions that are more abusive, and to effect more people—to me than the possible embarassment of a few people.
I agree with the Andrew Sullivan award idea. I mean we have the Emmy, the Grammy, the Fiskie (over at LGF), why not the Sully?
Of course Andrew didn’t quote this part of the story he blogged:
Some legal scholars also want to ignore the fact that the circumstances in which we find ourselves are far from customary and not contemplated when Article 3 was drafted, but then we start the whole intentionalist thing up again.
Also missing from Andrew’s post is the fact that in signing on to the UN Convention Against Torture, the Senate specifically adopted a definition of torture consistent with the changes being made to the Field Manual now.
That’s why he refers to the US being a “rogue state,” rather than focusing on the Administration, though he probably hopes people won’t catch the distinction.
As for Joyner, for the reasons just noted, it’s far from clear that we’re not following Article 3. Moreover, the reason GC elsewhere requires uniforms, etc. for POW status is to encourage parties to sign onto the agreement. Joyner’s position provides no incentive for our enemies to behave in a more civilized manner. I don’t expect they would anyway, but one would think that our allies—and Sullivan and Joyner—would recognize the principle in the first place. Oddly enough, I don’t think that those who believe the US is the Great Satan (whether running Iran, serving on some Ivy Leauge faculty or blogging for a news magazine) would have been swayed if the Field Manual remained unchanged.
And lest anyone think my last allusion to ol’ Sully is over the top, please note he called the US a rogue state—a term the US gov’t used to denote state sponsors of terrorism.
tw: ASPCA
That should be “League,” natch
tw: Preview!
Oh, come on! I’ve always hated the way they renamed thief to “rogue”, as if no one would notice! Personally, though, I’d rather see the US as a half-elf fighter/magic-user/ranger.
at least its got a fifth column, per Sullivan.
This is from the LA Times article:
She’s probably right. It would be better for us to loudly proclaim that no terrorist in US custody will ever, under any circumstances, have his feelings hurt or his self-esteem threatened (and then go ahead and do what we need to do, consistent with humane treatment, anyway).
Much like Sullivan’s moralizing – trumpet your transcendent morality, but if a nice piece of @ss comes your way, well, what The Boyfriend, The Beagle, or The LA Times don’t know won’t hurt them…
Dude…that is soooooooooo gay.
The US would be a necromancer, of course. With legions of dull-eyed, brown slaves.
Everyone knew that Judy “Third Base” Armyfeld was the “fast girl” at Frogbridge, and cousin Karl and I vowed that before summer was out, one of us….
I’d comment on this, but I’ve got to see a lawyer about a wedgie.
This is obvious torture! Prove me wrong.
Let the Leftist bastards blather all they want – most Americans do not see themselves in such negative terms, but they do connect such fools with mainstream Democrats –
Maybe Sully should contact a few JAG officers and ask them how this is addressed instead of in an FM. But that might take rolling out of the hammock, or barking an order to the intern or sommesuch.
Also, didn’t anyone ever teach Sully that when you make blanket statements like that, you usually need a whole lot of evidence to back it up? I suspect a whole bunch of angry e-mails with “.mil” on the end of it would cause him to partially backtrack and say he was wrong – it is just Bush and Rumsfeld that are to blame – not the nearly 2 million memebers of the DoD.
I would be offended by him calling me a torturer, etc., but I really stopped paying attention to him some time back. Now if you will pardon me, I have to go and shave the palms of my hands, so I can go back to my disguise (as a human, rather than a thuggish torturer-beast).
Andrew Sullivan is a dishonest self-aggrandizing scumbag. This guy is about as unethical as they come. Anybody who hasn’t heard of his previous fundraising scam should check out these articles:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/000283.htm
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/001410.htm
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/000303.htm
Nooooooo!! NOOOOOOO!!! Major John, you need to shave the backs of your hands. acthole is the one that shaves the palms
They tell you when you’re small
That it’s no thrill at all
And you should be ashamed
If ever you’re blamed
For flinging your jigger
They told me at the time
If I did, that I’d go blind
And my palm would then grow hair
If I should ever dare
To fling my jigger
I should have never climbed that pole
And slid back down……reeaalll sloooooow
but I surely did – and got a thrill
From then on I couldn’t get my fill
Of flinging my jigger
Now I go for my daily jog
Led by my seeing eye dog
And every day I shave my palms
But I tell you, I have no qualms
‘Cause I still fling my jigger.
My vague memory seems to recall that the McCain anti-torture bill made the Army Field Manual the standard for how prisoners should be treated. Assuming that my aged memory is correct, could these recent changes to the AFM be motivated as an end-run around that particular law?
Ran into some of those in our last session. My 8th-level rogue nation nearly died.
Oops, unintended consequences. Heh.
How did the assault weapons ban go, btw?
And to think none of this would have happened if Bush had simply supported gay marriage.
And by “this” I mean Sullivanian dyspepsia.
If you want to put away my gym teacher for crimes against humanity, I’m cool with that.
tw: children.
Ah Stack, you’ve reminded me of the good old days.
I’ll never forget the good times we had in junior high, stacking the nerds up in naked human pyramids, beating a couple of them to death, releasing angry dogs on them. Yes, junior high was one big Abu Ghraib fun camp!
I’m not American, but I’m OK with humiliating Muslim prisoners. If they’re in prison, they’ve already forfeited their human rights by their own actions, so actually, whatever works to save our civilisation is fine with me. I’m not going to second-guess the US Military who have a little more experience on the ground than I do, and than Andrew Sullivan has, and some mighty clever thinkers. No probs from my point of view.
Until the principal completed his investigation into your aberrant behavior and you got prosecuted for your misdeeds and sent to prison, right?
Jeff,
I don’t disagree that there’s a distinction between torture and humiliation. The problem is that Article 3, Section 1, Clause (c) prohibits “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.” Surely, we’re crossing that line on a regular basis.
Interesting . . . .
Seems “conservatives†use the term “rogue†to describe enemy nations, while “liberals†use this term primarily adjective to describe “our†country.
Interesting . . . .
Seems “conservatives†use the term “rogue†to describe enemy nations, while “liberals†use this noun to describe “our†country.
Cc,
I just hated the way those nerds beheaded everyone.
James —
I think Karl addresses this above when he notes that “in signing on to the UN Convention Against Torture, the Senate specifically adopted a definition of torture consistent with the changes being made to the Field Manual now.”
Jeff,
Not sure if you caught Mark Steyn’s most recent column, but when I read it, the first person I though of when I came to this paragraph was Sullivan:
And his closing is a classic
Hell, the US pretty much wrote the Geneva Conventions. We might have the grace to comply with them.
Only in comments sections, and don’t call me Shirley.
Jeff, James Joyner’s rejoinder addresses Article 3 of the GC, not the UNCAT, but I dealt with it by noting that Common Article 3 applies only to ‘armed conflict not of an international character.’ That language is at the link James provided, but he must have overlooked it.
The GWoT is of an international character, hence the “G.”
We are not following what “some” think Article 3 should say, but we are following what it does say.
Jeff: I agree if the prohibition were only on torture. But the clause in question also prohibits “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.” Stripping folks naked and having redneck women make fun of their dicks, to take one decidedly non-torture example, certainly seems to be degrading. (Now, being forced to have sex with Lynndie England would qualify as torture in my book.)
RC: There is that.
Does anyone remember the Dachau Massacre?
Karl (and others with knowledge on the subject), why was that clause included in Article 3? Didn’t/don’t we expect most wars to have an international character?
Geneva Conventions don’t come up in my job that often…
Yeah, Karl, caught that after I posted. But I added an update to the post noting your rejoinders.
No, but if you hum a few bars…
SGIC,
The Article 3 language addresses civil wars.
James keeps asserting something he either hasn’t read or chooses to avoid.
And for those who don’t click on links, here are the very first words of Article 3, from the link provided by James:
My emphasis.
There’s good money to be made in that in certain parts of the world.
TallDave,
After people Google the Dachau Massacre, they might want to follow up here.
with my lunch break fast ending, I jumped over to wikipedia (I know, I know…it’s the best I have on hand at the moment) to see where Joyner might find more traction. Assuming it isn’t all completely misquoted, wouldn’t Article 17:
No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind
serve as a substitute for what Joyner is looking for? While I don’t like the terminology of “unlpeasant or disadvantageous treatment” (as being held in detention would seem to meet both those loose criteria), doesn’t that map over to “humiliating and degrading”?
Sorry if I’m not making great arguements here…lunch and all
tw: Hell is other blogs?
Ed —
Precisely why it’s important not to give out of uniform enemy combatants not fighting for a standing army “POW” status, I think.
“Rogue Nation” A rogue is kinda like a pirate. Right? Cool!
I don’t think the present discussion (and the Army “Feld” Manual revisions) have anything to do with Prisoners of War.
A Prisoner of War is a captured enemy combatant who bears arms openly, wears a distinctive and recognizable uniform and is part of a some sort of military chain of command in the traditional sense.
Captured Iraqi soldiers fit this description; the terrorists do not.
Some Guy – now you get into the treatment of Prisoners of War – hence the argument cycles back to the beginning…and I mean back to the 2004 beginning.
The guys in Gitmo, Pol-e Charki, etc., don’t meet the definition of POW.
I have an honest question. The words international
law continously pop up. Where is the reading source
for these laws that I may educate myself as to their use, origins and makeup.
I…think you are addressing me with this.
But check mate on that it would seem. I also note the conventions make reference to protecing those combatants that “[conduct] their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.”
I wonder if IEDs are now considered customary?
Oops. Sorry, I get comments via email by email address. Didn’t realize you were using another screen name.
As I alluded to earlier, distinctions like POW status are made to encourage parties to sign onto the GC and comply with certain rules of war. Claiming that the US should treat those who do not fall under those rules as though they did would undermine the GC, not support it.
You outed me Goldstein! outed me!
What’s next, you going to tell everyone I make a little spare change on the side dancing for the boys down at the Skyway Toll Plaza?
oh…oops.
I’m not too far away from the Skyway…
Rusty
Talk Like A Rogue Day!
quark 2,
If you want to learn about international law in general, you could do worse than to start here.
International Law consists of the treaties a nation signs and the customs and conventions that nations follow in their dealings with one another.
Treaties have the force of stautory law, and as such can be overturned by a future act of the legislature.
Customs and conventions may have the force of law if they are sufficiently old and sufficiently widespread, however as a general rule they do not.
No custom or convention, and certainly no treaty, may contradict the US Constitution or that particular part of International Law will be ignored.
The enforcement of International Law is essentially based on the repercussions an offending nation foresees for the offense. If it’s important enough a nation will violate International Law until its eyes bubble – unless it thinks a more powerful nation, sufficiently outraged, will do something such as cut off contacts, emplace an embargo, or declare war/authorize military force.
That’s it in a ver, very general nutshell. YMMV.
NB: That last post was written from teh perspective of an American and how American law views International Law. Other nations may vary on details.
Argh Matey! We don’t need no blasted laws! Keel haul ‘em, says I!
Anyone who wants to blow up Canada must be truly EVIL.
Andrew Sullivan claims:
“your enemy can be treated beyond the boundaries of what the U.S. has always abided by.”
I know it is off the main topic, but I’d like to point out that Southerners with a longer memory than Andrew seems to have would probably disagree with him over exactly where the boundaries are that the United States “has always abided by.” Perhaps Mr. Sullivan’s “always” means “while I have been around” instead of the more common and less narcissistic use of the term.
The US as a Rogue nation?
I always thought of us as a Dr. Charles Xavier nation, you know, running everything with our minds. I’m sure the Left sees us as a Magneto nation, manipulating technology for our own evil purposes. Or even a Wolverine nation, always eager to fight and impossible to kill.
Okay, so I was one of those nerds who got tortured in 8th grade gym class…
Karl, you’re wrong re Common Article 3. You wrote:
CA3 was intended as a catch-all to cover all armed conflicts that did NOT fall under Common Article 2.
CA2 reads:
CA3 applies to, essentially, everything else.
OIF began as an “international armed conflict” (US vs Iraq)–once the gov’t fell though, or at least at some later point, it ceased really to be an international armed conflict BETWEEN two Contracting parties.
As to James, he’s also wrong in his reading of CA3. As stated, CA3 was the catch-all that covered all other conflicts not within CA2. It set the base minimum standards for protection for those detained in such conflicts.
CA3 prohibits the following:
That’s the level of punishment that CA3 is designed to prevent. Violence/Mutilation, hostages, and (arbitrarily adjudged) executions. With that in mind, do things like not having immediate access to a lawyer sound like an “outrage upon personal dignity” or “humiliating or degrading treatment?”
Better yet, considering the standard set by (a), (b), and (d), do things even like standing for extended periods of time, solitary confinement, sensory deprivation, or even the picture that Sullivan posted reasonably rise to the level of “outrage” as that relates to the other elements? I suppose some COULD argue that point, but they’d have to do it in the context of (c) being an outlier that drastically reduces the level of conduct required to violate Article 3. It’s a stretch to make such an argument in light of the rather explicit prohibitions contained elsewhere in CA3.
At the risk of side-tracking the discussion…
Are you referring to Henry Wirz and Andersonville prison?
Or Nathan Bedford Forrest and the Fort Pillow Massacre?
Perhaps Army Lawyer would care to explain how the war in which we find ourselves is not of an international character. It amazes me that so many people want to pretend that’s not the plain langauge of Article 3. Or maybe not.
Karl,
I think “Army Lawyer” deserves our thanks for his service, and our respect for his professional expertise.
What he is saying, I think, is that “not of an international character” was intended to mean “anything not covered by CA2”.
If I understand him, however, the point is that nothing that has been suggested would conflict with CA3, since the “minimum standards” are not things our forces would be authorized to violate in any case.
There is certainly a point here, though, that these rules were made in a different time, and based on different assumptions.
It seems to me that the smart thing to do would be to negotiate a supplement to the existing treaty that is clear in regard to the sorts of conflicts that are becoming more and more common: terrorism, and the treatment of those engaged in it. There is arguably an ambiguity or loophole in the treaty, to the extent that it was supposed to cover everything, and there is now an important class of cases where it is either silent or ambiguous.
Poor Andrew. He wants so much to be able to go to abu Ghraib and GTMO on a “human rights” crusade. The thought of all of those sweaty dark-skinned men being stripped, bound, and forced into humiliating positions is just more than old RAWMUSCLEGLUTES Andrew can take.
I agree that this whole area is getting well over analyzed. If you look in the scheme of things minor items usch as Abu Gharib and Haditha are blown way out of proportion. People over there should be glad we are defending them and not bitch as much. We are there on their behalf after all!
Draft Cheney 08’
And I agree that you’re a raving idiot!
And we all agree that you’re a raving idiot!
LagunaDave wrote:
I wasn’t being disrespectful. I agree that’s what he’s saying. The issue is whether that’s a proper—let alone the proper interpretation of Art.3.
ArmyLawyer certainly knows that the primary method of ascertaining legislative intent is the plain language of the text (which Jeff should love). Had the drafters intended to have Art.3 apply to all situations not falling under Art. 2, it would have been easy to express that intent by starting with the phrase, “In all cases not covered by Art 2…” But they manifestly did not. Instead, they prefaced with the qualifier, “In the case of armed conflict not of an international character…” Thus, to determine the applicability of Art 3, you must start with the issue of whether this is an armed conflict not of an international character. People may notice the attack on US soil by a global terror group, the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. and conclude that the conflict is of an international character.
Could ArmyLawyer make an argument that the conflict is not of an international character? I think he possibly could. Indeed, the original LA Times story Sullivan blogged rolled out the anonymous “some” in this regard. But that merely makes his position debatable. And since he started his comment by declaring my position flatly wrong, I’m not going to do the work for him.
hmmm… Cheney ‘08
experienced, serious, and he shot that dude. i like it!
TW: thing
the thing is, that dude was a lawyer
As long as Aunt Bea brings fried chicken and Otis doesn’t snore all night and smell like a distillery, all’s fine with me.
Ddn’t these come out of WWII? Wasn’t that an armed conflict of quite international character?
But I can just picture Bush “determining” things about “Common Article 3 of Geneva.”
Oops. I got article 3 confused wiht the third convention.
I think 29 minutes is now the record.
tw: or not
The only Cheney bumper sticker needed:
Cheney 2008. He shot a lawyer.
I could not struggle thru your whole post, nor the comments, so forgive me if this is redundant.
Mr. Sullivan, we should be so lucky for our brand of torture to be practiced world wide.
Just imagine the jihaddists depriving thier victims of sleep for days on end instead of CUTTING THEIR HEADS OFF!
Or maybe our cruel practice of keeping them in a room air conditioned to 55 instead of making them sit in a hot box of 130 degrees f and up for days on end.
Or the worst of all sins, forcing them to sit idle and read thier korans while they get 3 squares a day and become fat indolent slobs like all us other Americans, instead of 900 calorie diets under forced hard labor resulting in starvation.
With Rogue Nations like us, who needs friends?
Karl:
“International armed conflict” isn’t actually used in the GC–instead, we have conflicts “not of an international character” in CA3 and “all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties” in CA2.
The only reference for what constitutes a conflict “of an international character” is what’s included in CA2–that being conflict BETWEEN two contracting parties.
Any conflict that is NOT a CA2 conflict has to go somewhere…so we get CA3 as the catch-all.
So yeah, I can make the argument that OIF is not currently a conflict “of an international character” as defined by CA2 (since that’s where we have to look, rather than CA3, which provides no definition).
Moreover, note that if CA2 applies, then a whole buttload of other protections apply, notably those of Geneva Conv. IV as opposed to the mere “minimal” protections of CA3.
Or you can look at the plain anguage used. Or you can ask, as I did, why Art 3 doesn’t beging with, “In all cases not covered by Art 2…” or “In all cases of armed conflict other than between contracting parties…”
Note that ArmyLawyer addreses neither of these, despite the fact that the plain langage rule is near-universal in legal interpretation.
He’s also positing a false dichotomy, as it’s possible neither Art applies.
Also note that ArmyLawyer is referring to OIF, though imo we are talking about GWoT, of which OIF is one operation.
I wouldn’t be too quick to argue against Sullivan here.
Word out of the Ramrod down on 10th Avenue is, the boy knows his humiliation…
BTW, if we really want to get technical, the International Cmte of the Red Cross has a commentary on Art 3, which suggests it is to apply to “internal” conflicts and notes the concern with “civil wars or insurrections.”
I think the point is, Article 3 is not a separate document – it could quite reasonably be supposed to have some contextual connection to the article immediately above above it.
I mean, they are one right after the other.
The first sentence of Article 2 says:
And the first sentence of Article 3 says:
It seems reasonable to read this as, in effect:
If A Then
[…]
Else
[…]
Endif
Yes, I see your point, but trying to tease a third class of conflict out of what was seems clear from the context was intended to be a dichotomy seems to me a bit too Clintonian. And unnecessarily so.
The requirements of Article 3 are not unduly constraining, if it is read with some amount of common sense.
The nexus of Sullivan-esque hysteria seems to be this part:
This is not a very well-worded clause, since what is humiliating or degrading is entirely dependent on the state of mind of the subject, which is unreasonable.
For example, the time I was busted for DUI, I was handcuffed. I found that very humiliating. But I don’t anybody could sanely argue that use of restraints like handcuffs or restraints when transporting a prisoner is a violation of this treaty.
Since most terrorists likely find it humiliating to be captured and held by those their ideology teaches are no better than unclean animals, it seems like there is a pretty obvious Catch-22 here if the proscriptions are taken at face value.
Or, some might consider being required to strip, shower, and be deloused to be humiliating. Yet failure to do so could quite reasonable be considered failure to protect the captive’s health.
I keep seeing this CW meme plastered all over the place. Won’t someone see the deadly illogic of “our failure to do so undermines our moral authority”. This is the same stupidity that we “must be better than the others”, whoever they are. To be better imples that we are super-human. That EVERYBODY else (all 6 billion of them!) tortures BUT NOT US! This is silly. I propose that we be human and act just like everyone else does. Godhood doesn’t suit me at all. It humorous that the Left doesn’t see their religion shining through all their arguments.
Hey, since we’re supposed to be trying to “rebuild our shattered alliance” with the Germany, how about we hunt down any remaining WW II vets who might have been in any way involved with the Dachau Massacre. Come on, there’s gotta be one or two still tottering around.
And if they’ve all already escaped justice via the grave, I say DIG THEM UP!!
My quick take:
Yeah, the rest of the world thinks the US is (choose all that apply):
–torturing all prisoners on a daily/hourly/by-the-nanosecond basis by paying strict attention to their religiously based diet and prayer schedule;
–invades countries ruled by dictators for giggles or for oil or at the behest of JOOOOOOS at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of dead for the gain of exactly who no one seems to say, but definitely NOT for the Iraqi people;
–exploiting the masses by giving them jobs and selling them stuff (and buying even more stuff from them);
–ignoring the morally superior procedures of the United Nations as determined by France, Russia, China, Syria, Iran, Cuba, etc.;
–targeting journalists for death by embedding them with combat units that surround them with big burly dudes with guns;
–covering up war atrocities by placing them prominently in the media and through official pronouncments of the President, Secretary of Defense, and Chairman of the Joint Cheifs;
–on the verge of invading Cuba (for 40+ years), Venezuela (for 7+ years), and Bolivia (since Evo Morales read your book, Fidel, you magnificent bastard).
Have I missed anything?
Oh, and Andrew Sullivan is a narcissistic tool.
We are fighting terror so the choice is either the Geneva Convention or give Al Qaeda Democratics the modern world. It is that simple when you live in a roque state.
Something to consider is that the revised treatment of CA3(c) may have, and may actually be intended to have, the affect of enabling interrogations which would otherwise be handled by rendering the subject to another jurisdiction – so called ‘extraordinary renditions’. IMO it’s preferable to adapt enforceable standards, rather than relying on extra-judicial means.
–
Karl wrote:
Ummm…I did Sparky. When the plain language gives no POSITIVE definition of what constitutes a conflict “international in character”–you need (using good ol’ rules of construction) to look to the rest of the text.
The rest of the text gives a decent indication of what CA3 is meant to apply to–non CA2 conflicts.
But as indicated by LagunaDave–if you take a restrictive reading of CA3 as applying only to WHOLLY internal civil wars/insurrections, then neither apply. Fine by me. But that reading isn’t going to get you very far.
Oh, and the “Global War on Terror” has no bearing on what type of conflict we are in for purposes of the Geneva Conventions…the CinC could have called it the “SuperHappyFunWar” and the analysis would not change.
Additionally, asking “why doesn’t it say X” provides no guidance unless you can present a plausible response to why CA2 doesn’t (at least PARTIALLY) inform CA3.
It doesn’t say what it doesn’t say because it doesn’t say it. Beyond that, you gotta work with what you have.
wishbone,
Well said. I think you about nailed it.
The one positive thing you can say about Andrew Sullivan is that he was always the first kid to arrive at summer camp.
Why? Cause his shit was already packed.
Oh, and Cheney/Valdemort ‘08!
Bah. The fog is thick here —
Let’s do it the other way. Give me a description of a form of detention for people who intend to kill if released that will not constitute “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment…” Will an ordinary suite do, or must it be the penthouse? Must room service be available 24/7?
And I mean for Republicans, of course. Making ‘em sleep in the latrine trench is fine if it’s a Democrat doing it, and we already knew that.
Regards,
Ric