Bush Administration wants an exception for CIA to commit torture

[Mao]

The Geneva Convention cannot be violated where it doesn't apply, ie illegal combatants. It does not apply to criminals anywhere for instance. It does apply to uniformed members of the former regime obviously, but it may not apply to insurgents who are hiding within civilian populations or non-Iraqis / Afghanis who may claim that they are fighting an insurgency but in fact are merely murderers with no standing under the conventions.

I'm curious as I've not read the Geneva Convention. Does it actually state explicitly what an "illegal combatant" is? Or did the US government just kinda make that term up and unilaterally decide who was and who wasn't an illegal combatant? (If so, it reminds me a lot of this "person of interest" garbage from before) Besides, if we're going by the General Convention, shouldn't there be some non-government (or very neutral, Switzerland, for instance) body that decides who "illegal combatants" are instead of a nation actively engaged against them? Shouldn't we have an unbiased source for these judgements? Instead of just, say, declaring it as our interpretation? Is there some body that regulates this?

If the administration has basically scrapped the Geneva Conventions as you contend and that has left a complete void in the system as you seem to contend above, what is the basis for the prosecutions of the guards at Abu Graib and the several instances in Afghanistan as well?

Wait, the US Army people were tried for violations against the Geneva Convention??? Really? Shouldn't that be in an international court, then? Since, well, why does the US get to judge an international convention? I thought they were just tried with conduct unbecoming, some actions against the UCMJ?

[Berzerker]

Regarding what works and what doesn't, seems the situation dictates interrogation techiniques. If you know some crackpot has information that will save the life of their victim, torture them, I would. But wartime is a bit different, people are brainwashed into fighting and believing the enemy rapes women and eats babies, so treating them reasonably well might dispell the propaganda and result in willing informants.

Besides, the justification for torture requires guilt. If you're torturing innocent people there can be no justification, and in wartime, lots of innocent people get caught in the middle.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Mao

I'm curious as I've not read the Geneva Convention. Does it actually state explicitly what an "illegal combatant" is? Or did the US government just kinda make that term up and unilaterally decide who was and who wasn't an illegal combatant? (If so, it reminds me a lot of this "person of interest" garbage from before) Besides, if we're going by the General Convention, shouldn't there be some non-government (or very neutral, Switzerland, for instance) body that decides who "illegal combatants" are instead of a nation actively engaged against them? Shouldn't we have an unbiased source for these judgements? Instead of just, say, declaring it as our interpretation? Is there some body that regulates this?

I haven't read them recently. There are a large number of pertinent conventions, treaties etc. besides Geneva. They define who is covered, which are largely uniformed troops of signatories. There are provisions as well for insurgencies / irregulars in occupied countries, though they typically require something that demarks combatants from the civil population. There are plenty of courts who may claim jurisdiction, but as with most treaties it is up to the signatories to hash it out amongst themselves. Illegal combatant status is decided by whomever comes across them. Obviously most terrorists are illegal combatants.

Too many questions in one paragraph to really make a coherent paragraph in reply.

Originally posted by Mao

Wait, the US Army people were tried for violations against the Geneva Convention??? Really? Shouldn't that be in an international court, then? Since, well, why does the US get to judge an international convention? I thought they were just tried with conduct unbecoming, some actions against the UCMJ?

They were convicted for their crimes under the UCMJ. It's still illegal to beat someone to death, for your own pleasure etc. I was just supporting my point that the Geneva Conventions were not the glue holding every bad action by the military in check.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Ted Striker

Systems are not defined by field manuals specifically. Plus, as we have seen, we already had a working system of interrogation that was, at least in spirit, SUPPOSED to be run in the spirit of the Geneva Conventions. THere were of course violations to the Geneva Conventions, however, what is happening now is that it is clear and OUT IN THE OPEN, that we are doing wrong, against the spirit of the Conventions, and yet here we have people still defending it with that legal mumbo jumbo, "enemy combatants," and "worst of the worst," crap.

If you're an Army interrogator your system is indeed spelled out in the field manual. You don't have the time to follow the court cases or the arguments between the DoD and the White House and Congress. We both support the McCain bill to spell out explicitly and simplify the system so that the average grunt knows where they stand and hopefully situations like Abu Graib won't happen through ignorance. (Or at least can't be defended that way).

As for the treatment of Al Qaeda prisoners, it would insane to treat them under the Geneva Convention where they would have the ability to communicate with their pals, have numerous opportunities to escape or harm the guards, and generally be treated a lot better than Otis in Mayberry jail.

In WW2 the Japanese showed little regard for the rules of war, prisoner and civilian alike were slaughtered at the whims of whomever was present. Japanese soldiers feigned surrender in order to inflict additional casualties on enemy troops. We slaughtered them in every conceivable fashion, offerering them no chance to surrender and even shooting them when they were apparantly trying to surrender. It was a reasonable response to a very difficult problem.

Al Qaeda has now picked up the gauntlet of the kamikaze and we have to be careful not to afford them too many lethal advantages simply because they don't give a damn about any of these conventions that we are bound to.

Originally posted by Ted Striker

That line is so 2001, when the White House actually had credibility and we gave them the benefit of the doubt.

The Army still refuses to let a UN investigation team on Torture interview detainees on their own. They will let the UN tour the facility, but will not let them speak to the prisoners individually. What other reason could that be than for covering up what is actually going on. A nicely timed PR stunt, that's what they will show the outside world and that's it.

Many of those people labelled "enemy combatants" are infact innocent bystanders.

There is a case this week even of a detainee *EXCUSE ME* --> PRISONER, who has been held at Guantanamo for many years, having never been charged, having no criminal history whatsoever. His alleged reason for being imprisoned? He just happened to be in Tora Bora at the time there was a roundup.

His sitaution is NOT UNIQUE. Many prisoners have been released from Guantanamo ONLY because foreign governments, including our closest allies, like the UK, have DEMANDED we return their citizens. These citizens were held without a single charge. These are your "enemy combatants?"

That's the whole problem with scrapping the Geneva Conventions, it leaves people and systems unaccountable.

Innocent people are getting hurt from this, and it is making us look like a bunch of chumps.

I agree that we have to try those we are holding in order to seperate the the innocent from the guilty. What do you think the odds are that an innocent guy just happened to be hanging around Tora Bora, an Al Qaeda fortress complex at very high altitude in the winter during a battle between AQ and the U.S. and its Afghan allies? Not bloody likely imo. So while we probably don't have enough evidence to hold this guy, I'm not shedding any tears that he has been unable to help his friends out for the past few years in what amounts to an administrative detention.

As for our allies, there are some crocodile tears being shed about some of their people who were caught up in all of this. On the one hand it plays really well at home to make public demands of the U.S. On the other, they realize that a muslim whack job who was picked up in Afghanistan isn't the sort of citizen who they really want to be walking the streets, so they are torn. Many of these folks have been detained and charged when they returned home for just such reasons.

This conflict has shown weaknesses in many areas. The Geneva Conventions cannot be our guidepost for this sort of warfare, they are designed to regulate conflict between nation states and they assume that prisoners would rather live than simply use their status as a pretext to do more damage.

[SpencerH]

Not to mention the 'innocent' detainee's who've been released then recaptured fighting against our troops in Afghanistan.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Sikander





They were convicted for their crimes under the UCMJ. It's still illegal to beat someone to death, for your own pleasure etc.

What a stupid, unreasonable prohibition. HOW ARE WE SUPPOSE TO GET INFORMATION FROM THE PRISONERS IF WE CAN'T BEAT THEM TO DEATH!?!?

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by Sikander

edit......

As for our allies, there are some crocodile tears being shed about some of their people who were caught up in all of this. On the one hand it plays really well at home to make public demands of the U.S. On the other, they realize that a muslim whack job who was picked up in Afghanistan isn't the sort of citizen who they really want to be walking the streets, so they are torn. Many of these folks have been detained and charged when they returned home for just such reasons.

edit...

In the case of the Britons(who are muslim), i think thats wrong - they are all free, although a couple have needed constant medical attention due to the trauma of their apparatnly illegal incarcaration. There was a good documentary i caught most off about them.

The sad thing is that these guys were abducted from outside the uk, usualy visiting relatives back home(Pakistan/Afghanistan etc) - and were 'sold' of to the i guess CIA(?) or who ever was acting as the agents to remove them to Gauntanamo. by sold i mean your guys paid some guys in these countries to 'go get us some terrorists ok - we got plenty dollar'. and of course you got your 'terrorists'

In all the cases of the britons that have been returned to the uk, our intelligence services could find no evidence against them, so now they are free.

and on the wider issue of allies - i think this administration has done its best to ensure even your closest are pretty wary of the obvious agenda. Mr Blair seems to be a paid up supporter, but his power is slipping all the time and his charisma alone cant hide any longer the nasty taste he is leaving in the british publics mouth.

So this exercise in neo-conery will prove futile, but atleast it will be a learning experience for most of us who are good people. We will know what to watch for next time and quickly put it back into its little evil paranoid box from wence it sprang

i'm finding some links for you to check out:

http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/report.asp?ObjID=4bUT8M23lk&Content=424

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/1/11/93135.shtml

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1166826,00.html

(i know you wackos love the guardian )


edit: and before anyone posts it "No i dont hate freedom - i bl**dy love it and will fight to keep it alive!"

edit2: and here's your great Ally, partialy feeling the pince because of his lap-dog stance to Bush, although the article isn't about it - the sub-text of people waking up to and being suspicious of the 'Neo' supporters agenda is part of it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4401832.stm

[Agathon]

Originally posted by SpencerH


He wasnt a villain to me.

The truth about Republicans and their bizzaro morality.

[Colonâ„¢]

EU to investigate allegations of CIA jails

This pisses me off, if it is true. If the US wishes to trample due process of law and human rights, and wishes to squander whatever moral authorithy it has, fine, be my guest. But do it in your own bloody territory.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
How about if we give them cocktails of Rohypnol and Ecstacy to loosen them up? I mean from personal experience I know it works on chicks, so there's no reson to believe that it wouldn't work on terrorists. Would that be OK?

This takes the term "seeng patients" to a whole new level.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Agathon


The truth about Republicans and their bizzaro morality.

Your comment would make a minutiae of sense if either I or the character played by Jack Nicholson were republicans. Since I'm not, and we dont know the colonels political affiliation, I'm afraid you've missed the boat (again).

[Dinner]

Originally posted by child of Thor

In the case of the Britons(who are muslim), i think thats wrong - they are all free, although a couple have needed constant medical attention due to the trauma of their apparatnly illegal incarcaration. There was a good documentary i caught most off about them.

I'm hardly a supporter of the administrations current policies but this strikes me as BS. "I've been so traumatized by being in jail that I need constant medical care."

By all accounts Gotmo isn't a picnic but neither is it real oldfashioned torture. They use tactics like sleep deprevasion, sensory deprevasion, and other dirty tactics but not the things like the rack which people commonly associate with the word torture.

I'd still like to see these tactics retired and McCain's bill passed without a bunch of loopholes being added but the claims that former detainees need constent medical care just smack of untruth.

[Berzerker]

HOW ARE WE SUPPOSE TO GET INFORMATION FROM THE PRISONERS IF WE CAN'T BEAT THEM TO DEATH!?!?

Beat a few to death and getting information from others might be easier.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Sikander


If you're an Army interrogator your system is indeed spelled out in the field manual. You don't have the time to follow the court cases or the arguments between the DoD and the White House and Congress. We both support the McCain bill to spell out explicitly and simplify the system so that the average grunt knows where they stand and hopefully situations like Abu Graib won't happen through ignorance. (Or at least can't be defended that way).

The point is that simply spelling out a field manual doesn't do any good unless the rules are enforced. Anbody who has worked at any organization knows that there are many policies out there, many of them are often unknown, but it's the ones that are enforced that are the ones that are followed.

As for the treatment of Al Qaeda prisoners, it would insane to treat them under the Geneva Convention where they would have the ability to communicate with their pals, have numerous opportunities to escape or harm the guards, and generally be treated a lot better than Otis in Mayberry jail.

Even if you throw out the moral issues with that, you still have to look at the practical implications of following a strategy like that. Return on investment. What we are gaining in terms of information is practically worthless compared to the political damage we getting from this.

AH is right, it's best to try and act like their friend and get them working for us.

Since you mentioned WW2, this was the exact tactic we used, I'm sure there were atrocities committed by our troops, but by far and large we were considered benevolent to both Germany and Japan, and they are now two of our closest allies. This continued hard ass treatment does nothing but weaken us and give us absolutley no moral ground to stand on.

It's a joke when Condalezza Rice does her weekly scolding of Country of the Week, accusing them of human rights violations, and here we are running secret jails and running a torture system. And yes, it is a system.

I agree that we have to try those we are holding in order to seperate the the innocent from the guilty. What do you think the odds are that an innocent guy just happened to be hanging around Tora Bora, an Al Qaeda fortress complex at very high altitude in the winter during a battle between AQ and the U.S. and its Afghan allies? Not bloody likely imo. So while we probably don't have enough evidence to hold this guy, I'm not shedding any tears that he has been unable to help his friends out for the past few years in what amounts to an administrative detention.

That guilty before proven innocent view pretty much speaks for itself. I'm sure the same logic applies equally in situations such as gang shootouts when a little girl gets shot by a bullet flying through her house. Hey, it's the little b1tch's fault she was living in that neighborhood.

This conflict has shown weaknesses in many areas. The Geneva Conventions cannot be our guidepost for this sort of warfare, they are designed to regulate conflict between nation states and they assume that prisoners would rather live than simply use their status as a pretext to do more damage.

The collective wisdom and spirit of the Geneva Conventions should be the Gold Standard for all wars. Anything else is just foolhardy. Be careful what you wish for.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Colon
EU to investigate allegations of CIA jails

This pisses me off, if it is true. If the US wishes to trample due process of law and human rights, and wishes to squander whatever moral authorithy it has, fine, be my guest. But do it in your own bloody territory.

This is a PERFECT example of why following the Geneva Conventions is important.