Despite the president’s assertion that time is running out , this is looking to be dead until next session. Of course, we’re all horrified that Frist would attempt to deny the bill an ‘up or down vote’. 
He’s seen a video, and determined that McCain is brain-dead.
I think this is the more relavent news item:
You have to understand the art of negotiation. Given the SCOTUS decision in Hamdan, I didn’t expect anything from Bush other than what he did-- submit what he was already doing to Congress for approval. Lack of Congressional approval was the main criticism offered in that decision. Even though you may find this hard to believe, Bush probably does believe that what he was doing was OK. You and I might not think that, but he did. So, Congress comes back with a proposal and the horse trading begins.
And so it goes: Bush, Republicans agree on terrorism trial deal. Light on the details, but I assume we’ll learn more shortly.
This is my favorite part (judging strictly from the poltical angle):
There’s only one winner here-- McCain and his presidential bid in '08. That guy is just racking up the points like nobody’s business!
The Republicans are winners because torture moves to the back burner before the general-election campaigns heat up. It will be most interesting to see what “interrogation methods” Bush puts in the Federal Register as having determined to be “not torture”.
What the American public would really be outraged by are insinuations of some kind of moral equivalence between the non-uniformed combatants captured by the US on the battlefield and uniformed US soldiers being taken as hostages in the line of duty. A harsh interrogation of prisoners taken by the US can yield information that saves lives, while interrogations conducted by the other side are little more than political statements prefacing a cowardly slaughter.
And as far as adherence to the Geneva Conventions, what the White house is trying to avoid is the extension of treaty protections to a non-sovereign entity incapable of fulfilling the responsibilities that being a signatory to the treaty entails. A POW is extended rights under the Geneva Conventions because their side agreed to play by the rules. It’s a distinctly Western way of making war that doesn’t mesh well with the Islamists’ preference for asymmetric warfare; they see it as just another weakness to exploit.
The “clarifications” are a means for congress to set definite standards so that the people carrying out the interrogations don’t have to fret about legality, only about getting the information. It also protects them from potential litigation.
Translation: It’s not an atrocity when we do it.
And do you really want to re-open the can o’ worms about how you can distinguish between “non-uniformed combatants” captured on the battlefield vs. “random bystander” caught in a roundup of suspects again? Or do you envision all those non-uniformed folks out there having a magical neon icon that tells whether they’re friend or foe?
What do you mean, reopen? These guys are not POWs, and no one, including the Dems, is advocating that they be treated like POWs. You might want to learn the difference betwen Article 3 and Article 4 of the GC.
I think you missed a few of the subtleties in your translation. See, after someone’s gone through a water boarding to get them talking, they go on living their lives. After someone’s had their head sawed off with a dull, rusty, blade, their prospects aren’t as good.***** The information we get from the former case helps prevent more of the latter. Just because violence was employed in both instances does not make them morally equivalent; it’s the degree of violence employed and the purpose to which it’s directed.
I don’t doubt that innocents get caught up during raids or in the middle of combat; being in the wrong place at the wrong time is a respected human institution. What I doubt is that more than a fraction of them make it through the screening that takes place between the field and the prison, and that fewer still stay for long in the prison itself. We only have so many places we can keep these guys, and we wouldn’t want to waste space with innocents we can’t do anything productive with.
If it turns out we are scooping up more sheep than we’d like, the key is not to go easier on the wolves, but improve our intelligence assets to better screen out the sheep. In the meantime, the clarifications do more than just cover US personnel from litigation; it also makes it manifestly clear when one of them has crossed the line.
*If it sounds to you like I’m cherry picking worst case scenarios, feel free to replace the water boarding with any of the other methods of interrogation publicly proposed by the Administration, and the rusty saw blade with any of the other niceties Islamists have made themselves famous for.
You’re correct in that a moral equivalence can’t be drawn between the two, but we still shouldn’t do the comparison at all. We have our own set of ethical standards which have nothing whatsover to do with the standards of the Islamists who kill innocent civilians on purpose.
If our ethical standards are dependent on the behavior of others, they are nothing more than empty posturing.
What does that to do with anything ? Do you think it’s better to imprison and torture innocent civilians ?
And when they die from our torture, do they go on living their lives ? What about the ones we cripple or drive insane ? What about the children we molest to intimidate their parents ?
Yes, we are worse. Torturing is worse than killing. You also assume we get useful information from the torure, instead of lies meant to make it stop, which is what really happens.
Yes, we are worse. We simply don’t care. They treat us as enemies; we treat them worse than we treat animals.
I was watching Keith Olbermann’s interview with Bill Clinton tonight, and Clinton said pretty much what the experts have been saying all along-it doesn’t give US accurate information, and it only puts our troops at risk.
Keep telling yourself that, John. Undoubtably it makes you feel a whole lot better about your country and carries you beyond reality reality.
Look, there’s no hiding, nor scaping, simple fact of the matter is your country has killed, at a a minimum, ten times as many innocents as died in 9/11. Something to be proud of? Thankfully, not every American seems to think so:
Breaks mine as well.
Then maybe should treat them like potential “prisoners of war.” After all, it seems very likely given our track record, that these men may have done nothing at all.
Secret prisons? Government sanctioned torture? I thought you were against terrorism, John Mace.
Here’s some clarity: Torture is wrong, and evil. Period. The people who advocate it always have a lot of rationales, excuses, etc., and they never stand up to reason or the judgement of history. Anybody reconsidering the stuff that happened in the Inquisition? Anybody revisiting the treatment of accused witches in the middle ages? Anybody think crucifixion is a practice that wasn’t so bad after all?
Nope. We know better. Or should.
There’s another factor in terms of risk to our troops, and that is the motivation of the enemy to surrender. When dealing with a genuine religious fanatic, this probably ain’t worth much, if he’s thinks he can cash in a death wish for Paradise. But not that many of us are so faithful, and an armored division can have enormous theological influence.
If you think you are likely to be tortured and/or mistreated, this would surely affect the likelihood that you will surrender. An enemy that surrenders is better than one killed, because no one has to risk getting killed to do it.
WWII German soldiers walked long distances and braved hardships in order to surrender to Americans rather than Russians. How many more of our troops would have been killed if it were otherwise?
If they’re not POWs, they’re civilians until proven otherwise.
You are conflating different aspects of a multi-faceted problem, Zoe.
Firstly, the GC protocals for POWs do not apply to those groups who do not adhere to the rules of war. Al Qeada is the poster child for such groups.
Secondly, you are correct that many of the detainees in Gitmo may be entirely innocent. And, btw, I’ve always supported giving them due process and fair and open trials. I doubt that many of those being held there are actually al Qaeda operatives.
However, and this is the third point, there are legitimate al Qaeda operatives in custody and I absolutely do not support treating them like POWs, no matter who captures them or where they were captured. They are international criminals of the highest order, not soldiers in some army.
Yeah, you caught me. I’m in favor of terrorism. :rolleyes: