The President said last week that the CIA and military interrogators need “clarity” as to what they can and can’t do while questioning prisoners. The Senate Armed Services Committee voted in favor of a bill reiterating U.S. adherence to the Geneva Conventions, something the White House apparently doesn’t want.
How’s this for clarity: If the American public would be outraged to hear about it being done to captured U.S. military personnel, we shouldn’t do it to anyone else.
I’m not sure that is wise. The American public is not a neutral observer. The effect of that rule would be unpredictable.
I don’t see how the rule is unclear. While the conventions use plain, everyday words that have some wiggle room, there’s simply not enough to include what the President wants and has already done.
It might be one thing if the President came and asked for retroactive cover for doing something he felt necessary as a one time act to defend the nation: lets face it, Presidents sometimes break laws, and primarily for partisan reasons, but sometimes for legitimate reasons of national security, they are never held to account. But he wants to ingrain “anyone, anywhere in the world” rendition, torture, and show trials into standard everyday law. Uh uh.
I think you’re going to have a hard argument to make, Bricker, that anyone can argue against a rule saying that only other people have to follow our morality, not us.
I think you’re going to have a hard argument to make, Bricker, that anyone can argue against a rule saying that we have to follow our own morality. Or at least I don’t see any way you can argue the converse, “Only other people have to abide by our morality.”
Oddly enough, you are making the precise point I am making: to wit, if “the American public” are the judges, then they well could be outraged at treatment of captured Americans that is perfectly proper, and uncaring at treatment of foreign POWs that would be improper. I believe any standard that seeks to use “the public” as its yardstick is unworkable, precisely because the public WOULD demand that only other people abide by our morality. I have no problem with the basic rule – just the introduction of “the public” as the deciding body.
Valid, it is poor wording on the part of the OP, inspite of the fact that the intent was obviously what we are saying.
But the OP is not suggesting that we should use “the American public” to set a double standard of the kind you’re describing. Instead, s/he wants the American public’s views on treatment of American POW’s to be used in determining a single standard for prisoner treatment. Namely, if we wouldn’t want it done to our guys, we shouldn’t do it to their guys.
Elementary Golden Rule in action, in other words. I don’t see that there was anything unclear or poorly worded about the OP.
Here’s the problem: We’re not talking about military personel-- we’re talking about criminals. If we were talking about those who fit the definition of POWs in Article 4 of the GC, I’d agree with you. But we’re not talking about those types of people.
How about this: If the American public would be outraged to hear about it being done to members of organized crime, we shouldn’t be doing it to suspected terrorists. Much of the American public think we’re way to soft on criminals (even supsected criminals).
I don’t know which specific techniques Bush is talking about, and I suspect I’d disagree with many of them. But… I understand his point about a different standard being used by the CIA vs the military. If the CIA captures some al Qaeda guy in Burka-Birkastan, I don’t think they should handle the guy like he was a POW. I’d be outraged if a captured US military guy was thrown in a cell to “sweat it out” for some time with some crappy food and a pisspot. But I wouldn’t be outraged if that were done by our spy agency to a suspected terrorist, and it wouldn’t offend my sensabilities if that were done to an American spy (ie, non-military type) by an unfriendly government.
The key is to draw the line for such activities so that we don’t waterboard people (which I consider torture), but so that we can use more aggressive interogation techniques than what the GC allows for POWs. I don’t see what’s wrong with that.
No, we’re talking about suspects. If we wouldn’t want foreign interrogators using a particular procedure on Americans whom they suspect of being secret agents plotting violence against their citizens, then we shouldn’t use that procedure on foreigners whom we suspect of being terrorists plotting violence against our citizens.
How would your sensibilities feel if it were done to an American tourist who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and was wrongly identified as an American spy?
Even so, I disagree. I might well imagine public outrage if American POWs were interrogated by their captors for four hours per day – simple interrogation, sitting them at a table and askign questions, period. There’s nothing wrong with doing that, and it’s permitted by any and all of the treaties extant.
Why should the uninformed reaction of the public to such a tactic drive our policy in such an instance?
Really? Might you well imagine that? I really mightn’t.
See, you’ve (accidentally) hit on the problem.
I can imagine outrage from the public if they learn that an innocent man was wrongly convicted and spent the last ten years behind bars for a crime he never committed.
But I would not want that outrage to translate into not locking up convicted criminals for ten years.
Nor do I wish the limits of your imagination to drive our policy in this area.
Call them suspects, then. But the GC req’ts for the treatment of POWs are specifically designed so that military folks cannot be coerced into giving up anything other than Name, rank and serial number. You cannot punish a POW in any way whatsoever for withholding info about military plans or whatever. Is that really the way we want to treat capture al Qeada suspects?
But that’s outside the bounds of how the OP is framing the question. Frankly, if the US had a long history of extensive spying inside of country “X”, it might offend me to see a tourist treated that way, but it wouldn’t surprise me. If we were at war with country “X”, then I wouldn’t be outraged at all. We are at war with al Qaeda.
It always offends us when the guy turns out to be innocent. But that’s not the sole standard we use for determining how agressively we can interogate someone. Again, the OP is saying to treat them like POWs. I disagree, because POWs have to be handled with kid gloves.
Actually, this is incorrect, and may be the root of the OP’s problem. The military is bound by the (Army?) Field Manual, and Bush is not asking for clarification about what they may or may not do. That’s already clear. He wants to consider seperately what the CIA is bound by. I think they need a bit more of a free hand. Not as much as Bush wants to give them, I’m sure, but more than what the Army Field Manual or the GC allows.
Is there some mechanism that prevents the Army from handing over any or all such prisoners to the CIA? If not, what difference does any such distinction make?
Make that part of the legislation if you like.
No, we are talking about more or less random people who were turned over for bounties, and most of whom haven’t even been charged with anything. They aren’t criminals, or even suspects.
As for the results :
Good for him ! It’s the duty of all good people to hate America. We’ve earned it.