# Bush Admin wants to narrow the scope of the War Crimes Act **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 16, 2006, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979 "2006-08-16T17:44:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2006, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/21 "2006-08-16T20:50:39Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] Yes, I am. I, for one, don’t agree that these acts represent an “outrage” upon personal dignity. Forced nakedness is common in prisons and jails; prisoners are required to shower in communal settings. I mentioned in my post above Sheriff Joe somebody or other in Arizona, who forces his male prisoners to wear pink clothing. Nothing criminal about it. [/QUOTE] You don’t see a difference between having to shower with other people and having to be naked in situations where you’d normally not be naked, quite unlike a shower? You don’t see a difference between being dressed in pink and being restrained with a dog leash? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2006, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/22 "2006-08-16T20:59:45Z")
[QUOTE=Priceguy] You don’t see a difference between having to shower with other people and having to be naked in situations where you’d normally not be naked, quite unlike a shower? You don’t see a difference between being dressed in pink and being restrained with a dog leash? [/QUOTE] Of course there is a difference. But I don’t think a law that merely targets “outrages” against human dignity would be the correct way to distinguish those differences. Your line for what constitutes an outrage and mine will vary enough that a statute with that language simply does not give fair notice of what is prohibited. A cautious prison administrator may worry that he would be targeted because he forces inmates to shower in communal settings. Forcing male inmates to wear pink clothing might well be seen as an “outrage” by some people… in fact, I bet if you polled the SDMB population here, asking them if this sheriff’s tactic was “outrageous” or “an offense to human dignity” you’d get a few ‘yes’ responses. Sorry - the language is simply too vague to be reasonably enforceable. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2006, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/23 "2006-08-16T21:06:04Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] I don’t believe that imposing forced nakedness (in a single-sex environment), the use of dog leashes (as props, not as instruments of physical pain), or the wearing of women’s underwear should constitute a criminal act **if imposed on terrorism detainees.** [/QUOTE] :dubious: Implying different standards are appropriate for them than for other kinds of prisoners. Why? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2006, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/24 "2006-08-16T22:15:29Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] I don’t understand this response at all – would you mind rephrasing what you’re saying? [/QUOTE] The quote I posted from the article explains it. This proposed law attempts to define actions that violate Article III. Actions like murder, rape, hostage taking, etc. But “left off the list” is the issue actions that are degrading. So, it doesn’t try to make that language more specific, since it doesn’t address it at all (according to the article). But I agree with **Age Quod Agis** in that lets hold our horses until we see the actual legislation that Bush will propose. This is all too sketchy at this point. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2006, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/25 "2006-08-16T22:34:29Z")
[QUOTE=Weirddave] Well, if that’s what he meant by his last post (which it clearly isn’t), then I suppose he does, if they are captured by other U.S. forces, since that’s the people whose behavior he references. [/quote] That’s an unavoidable inference from his position. Whatever you support being done BY the US, you also have to support being done TO the US. > [@](#): > > Do we get to play the double standard game now Dio? Can we now treat captured enemy combatants the same way they treat U.S. soldiers? 1. Nobody in Gitmo has captured any US soldiers. 2. Our standard is that we treat ALL prisoners the way we want our OWN people treated. > [@](#): > > That would make things real simple, no more Gitmo, no more abuse, just a quick bullet in the back of the head or a sword across the neck. Cit that anyone in Gitmo has ever done any of those things? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2006, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/26 "2006-08-16T23:26:41Z")
Remember the Inquisition? Some of its most grisly tortures arose because there was an official and specific Church law that forbade its preists from doing anything to others that draws blood. Instead of understanding the intent of the law – that a preist may not harm others – they went after the specific language, and came up with things like the bastinado, the heated boot, striking the knees with large hammers, dunking (now called waterboarding) and the plum (a gag that dislocated the victim’s jaws, without of course drawing blood). Isn’t it obvious that if the US establishes specific standards for torture, degrading treatment or whatever, our handy-dandy legal types (all law, no morality) will work closely with our torturers (let’s just call them what they are) to come up with all sort of legal (in terms of the letter of the law) ways of torturing and degrading people, and if THOSE methods are subsequently defined as illegal, they’ll just come up with new ones. Such “specificity” sounds to me like a back-door way of making torture and degrading treatment the norm. I agree that we should wait for specific language before we get too exercised about this, but this is one aspect I’d look at very carefully. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2006, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/27 "2006-08-17T00:21:40Z")
[QUOTE=Evil Captor] Remember the Inquisition? Some of its most grisly tortures arose because there was an official and specific Church law that forbade its preists from doing anything to others that draws blood. [/quote] So we’d be better off not prohibiting torture at all? Surely that’s not what you’re suggesting, is it? I hope we can all agree that the Inquisition was not a result of this one church decree, and that the torture was just as severe and inhumane before the decree as after. > [@](#): > > dunking (now called waterboarding) Waterboarding (at least as it’s practiced today) doesn’t actually involve dunking someone’s head under water. It involves tying someone to a board, laying him so his head is below his feet and lungs, wrapping his head in cellophane or cloth, and then pouring water over his head so he feels like he’s asphyxiating. In truth, it’s difficult to asphyxiate in that position because the lungs are above the head and the water is blocked by the cellophane or cloth. However, waterboarding creates the psychological feeling of drowning. It is, however, possible to drown while dunking, and in fact, many people did die while being “dunked.” > [@](#): > > Isn’t it obvious that if the US establishes specific standards for torture, degrading treatment or whatever, our handy-dandy legal types (all law, no morality) will work closely with our torturers (let’s just call them what they are) to come up with all sort of legal (in terms of the letter of the law) ways of torturing and degrading people, and if THOSE methods are subsequently defined as illegal, they’ll just come up with new ones. > > Such “specificity” sounds to me like a back-door way of making torture and degrading treatment the norm. First of all, I’m glad you separated torture and degradation. Like you and **Bricker** , I think the two are distinct. Second, the reason it’s against American law to convict someone based on a vague law is because it’s _immoral_ to do so. It’s _immoral_ to convict someone for an act that they had no way of knowing was illegal. It’s a law designed to protect criminal defendants. Surely you’re also in favor of moral protections for domestic criminal defendants, aren’t you? Third, you seem to be under the impression that prohibiting specific acts will result in fewer prosecutions. As has been mentioned by numerous posters and in the linked interview, the current broad language will not support _any_ convictions. We’ve got the choice between adding specific language that will prevent acts (like waterboarding), or sticking with the current language that will not prevent those same acts (like waterboarding). So we can either stick with the status quo – which effectively prohibits nothing – or amend the statute – and possibly have some prosecutions. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2006, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/28 "2006-08-17T02:39:01Z")
[QUOTE=Age Quod Agis] First of all, I’m glad you separated torture and degradation. Like you and **Bricker** , I think the two are distinct. [/QUOTE] But I hope you will agree both should be crimes. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2006, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/29 "2006-08-17T03:10:43Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] :dubious: Implying different standards are appropriate for them than for other kinds of prisoners. Why? [/QUOTE] Because prisoners in the United States, convicted of domestic crimes, are in a different category than prisoners held overseas and detained for acts of violence and war against the country. And that difference is legal – the Constitution does not reach fully into a prison on foreign soil, for one thing. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2006, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/30 "2006-08-17T03:31:29Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] Because prisoners in the United States, convicted of domestic crimes, are in a different category than prisoners held overseas and detained for acts of violence and war against the country. And that difference is legal – the Constitution does not reach fully into a prison on foreign soil, for one thing. [/QUOTE] Why doesn’t it? And much more importantly, why **shouldn’t** it? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2006, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/31 "2006-08-17T04:10:39Z")
Alos, when was it determined that anyone at Gitmo has committed acts of war or violence against America? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2006, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/32 "2006-08-17T04:21:56Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] Because prisoners in the United States, convicted of domestic crimes, are in a different category than prisoners held overseas and detained for acts of violence and war against the country. And that difference is legal – the Constitution does not reach fully into a prison on foreign soil, for one thing. [/QUOTE] The category they fall under is “human”. Thereby, endowed with certain inalienable rights. Which we hold to be, as I recall, self-evident. Is that a principle, or an adornment? ---
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2006, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/33 "2006-08-17T10:18:13Z")
[QUOTE=Weirddave] Well, if that’s what he meant by his last post (which it clearly isn’t), then I suppose he does, if they are captured by other U.S. forces, since that’s the people whose behavior he references. Do we get to play the double standard game now Dio? Can we now treat captured enemy combatants the same way they treat U.S. soldiers? That would make things real simple, no more Gitmo, no more abuse, just a quick bullet in the back of the head or a sword across the neck. [/QUOTE] How’s that supposed to be better? If we’re “civilized” and they’re “uncivilized”, how does that point out any difference between the two? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2006, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/34 "2006-08-17T16:09:30Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Why doesn’t it? And much more importantly, why **shouldn’t** it? [/QUOTE] What part of the constituion are we talking about? The 2nd amendment? Surely you need to narrow the scope, no? ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2006, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/35 "2006-08-17T16:40:44Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] But I hope you will agree both should be crimes. [/QUOTE] I agree that _some_ acts of degradation should be crimes. But not all. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2006, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/36 "2006-08-17T18:01:18Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Why doesn’t it? And much more importantly, why **shouldn’t** it? [/QUOTE] It doesn’t because the Supreme Court says it doesn’t. It shouldn’t because the Constitution was designed as a framework for our internal government, not as a guideline for how to wage and prosecute war. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2006, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/37 "2006-08-17T18:02:51Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] Alos, when was it determined that anyone at Gitmo has committed acts of war or violence against America? [/QUOTE] The tribunals formed in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in _Hamdi_ have been busy making those determinations. So the answer to your question, in part at least, is: \*Since the SCOTUS decision in \* Hamdi. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2006, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/38 "2006-08-17T18:03:57Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] The category they fall under is “human”. Thereby, endowed with certain inalienable rights. Which we hold to be, as I recall, self-evident. Is that a principle, or an adornment? [/QUOTE] Well, it certainly has nothing to do with the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2006, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/39 "2006-08-17T18:24:32Z")
We have one side looking for justification ,legal and moral ,to humiliate and abase human beings. These are not convicted people and many are innocent. Not to forget ,that many experts say torture doesnt work. Under torture, like in Marathon Man, you will likely say anything to make the pain stop. Mikitary experts I have read say ingratiating yourself to them slowly is more effective technique. The real question ,is are they changing the rules to avoid future prosecution. This would be saying that they know they have exceeded todays standards and are vulnerable. Torture, extraordinary rendition waterboarding, sexual humiliations, shame us all. ---
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2006, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/40 "2006-08-17T20:56:57Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] I don’t believe that imposing forced nakedness (in a single-sex environment), the use of dog leashes (as props, not as instruments of physical pain), or the wearing of women’s underwear should constitute a criminal act if imposed on terrorism detainees. [/QUOTE] Just ‘terrorism detainees’? This would not have covered a good portion, if not most, of the prisonners at Abu Gharab however? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979.md?page=3)