This is how: the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.
If you don’t want your own captured combatants to be mistreated, you have to agree to treat the opposition properly.
War is hell.
Yes but there are degrees of hell.
If you can make things a little bit better, why not?
Hence the red cross and rules of conduct.
Those rules are ofcourse just a thin veneer and depend on culture as well. Treating your POW’s well is a western-european thing.
The Russians didn’t have such qualms about shooting prisoners and the Germans were quick to follow, once confronted with mutilated corpses of their troops that had surrendered to the Russians. Americans were also liable to shoot surrendering waffen-ss soldiers after they heard about the shooting of US POW’s at Malmedy.
Things can degenerate quickly in war. Best to try and keep a semblance of civilisation.
** Sgt. J**, obviously I expect safeguards would be in place and the prisoners do not get to choose who does the inspection and there are many ways of ensuring that is not a concern. The Red Cross has a very good track record and I am sure there are plenty of ways of doing it which assure the process is safe and fair.
Mandos and jjimm, it really does not matter whether an individual is a POW or a common prisoner, or awaiting trial, or walking on the street. All civilised nations recognise governments do not have the right to torture anybody and this issue concerns all prisons, not just military. If you do not mind I would not want this thread
Continuing news:
A U.S. official said allowing outside observers into state prisons would infringe on states’ rights!! What states retain the right to torture prisoners? I thought the US Constitution already superseded any such states rights.
Starting off from sailor’s most recent points.
Disregardful of the idiocy spouted by the isolationists and the helicopter crowd, the US has neither questioned the validity of the Convention Against Torture, nor previously questioned the right to enforce it through inspections in principle. They still don’t as such and each statement against the present measure so far has contained the caveat that there is no opposition to the principle of the convention. The general impasse is and has been that the federal state is hard pressed to force single states to comply. The US has previously chugged along and taken the battle with the single states for the sake of the greater importance of the convention itself.
This specific case is about Guantanamo, and Guantanamo only. According to the NY Times and several other new sources, this accusation brandished by multiple diplomats to the UN has met with no contest from the US, rather tacit admittance. Why? Well the status of the prisoners at Guantanamo is contested, and Ashcroft, Rumsfled et al haven’t been able to resolve that very well in the eyes of the world community, they themselves even admit that it’s not clear.
By opening up Guantanamo to inspection they open up that whole can of worms, which they are desperately trying to avoid. So what do they do? They turn around and start twisting and squirming using the quandary with state autonomy as an excuse to attempt defeat of the proposed provision for inspections, saying that forcing the single states to comply would be unconstitutional.
Effect? For no good reason messieurs of the Maison Blanche manage to send out a signal that tells the world to piss off and mind their own business while they themselves meddle all over the place. Smart? Hardly.
Solution? How about sitting down with the rest of their allies and agreeing once and for all what the status of the chaps at Guantanamo should be in accordance with international conventions, treaties and law. But no! Then The Three Gringos might come across as if the chaps, spurs, Stetsons and chewing tobacco were only for show. It’s a deliberate hard line policy, but a silly and destructive one. If you must be hardliner, take Teddy Roosevelt’s approach, ‘speak softly and carry a big stick’.
Dubya’s principle seems to be ‘wield and flail your stick around and holler like a madman’.
Sparc
>> This specific case is about Guantanamo, and Guantanamo only
Sparc, I believe you are mistaken. I believe it is a general protocol being discussed. Why would states rights be mentioned?
>> Disregardful of the idiocy spouted by the isolationists and the helicopter crowd, the US has neither questioned the validity of the Convention Against Torture
Ouch! It is phrases like this that make my brain hurt. It is probably correct but the word “disregarful” throws me off and I’ve spent a while parsing it and I’m still not certain of the meaning or construction. I guess it would be equivalent to: “The US, disregardful of (i.e: disregarding) idiocy spouted by the isolationists and the helicopter crowd has neither questioned the validity of the Convention Against Torture etc”
If there is an exception I would allow in torturing people it would be for those who use the word “irregardless”. Disregardful is a valid adjective but start to use it wrongly and you are getting too close to “irregardless”. 
I believe a better synonym for “disregardful” would be “notwithstanding” or “irrelevant to”. “Irregardless” is a non-official word, according to dictionary.com.
My bad choice of words. Your correct reaction and correction. Obviously I meant it as you put it. I’m a little wee bit sleepy today.
As re Gitmo I’ll be right back. Just wanted to clear up the disregardful/irregardless blunder first.
Sparc
It’s acceptable though jjimm.
No matter, the point was made and I hope that the meaning I intended to convey is now clear.
From the original treaty that was ratified:
So the US don’t have to cooperate with the new stuff at all. And if this isn’t an amendment to the original treaty, why does the US ratification of that one have anything to do with it?
Regarding Gitmo,
I must be writing in very sleepy style indeed if I managed to give the impression that I thought the protocol was about Guantanamo only. The protocol is general, without a doubt. I infer that the resistance from the White House is based on Guantanamo only and that they are using state rights as a way to argue the protocol and thereby thwart inspections at Guantanamo (the real concern).
From the previously linked article in NY Times,
If you ask me it looks a lot like arguing were one possibly can in order to thwart something where one does not have a footing for argument.
Sparc
I don’t really like my previous answer, it’s true but not necessarily relevant. This is more to the point, from the UN:
Latro writes:
Well, yes, but this is an ideal time for the US to help organize a strong world government, to which all the nations of the earth are answerable–after all, if we do it now, the US need only be reasonably fair with regards to the structures and procedures it recommends and lends its efforts to, while doing the usual posturing about international obligations and the greater good, and it would still have plenty of room to obtain beneficial initial set-up situations and de facto power due to its current situation.
Instead, we’re sitting apart, defensive and paranoid, worrying about OUR AUTONOMY? 
Stalinist Russia never seemed to worry about losing its sovereignty as a result of belonging to the USSR. The lions don’t usually lose so much sleep over the risks of cohabitating with lambs.
>> So the US don’t have to cooperate with the new stuff at all.
Well, no, the US doesn’t “have” to do anything. It could sever all foreign relations and treaties and go into deep isolation mode. The question is whether this is a good idea which will serve the interests of the US in the longer term. Other countries throughout history have taken an isolationist tack thinking they were better off and it has never worked out well for them. I believe China around 1970 had absolutely no foreign relations with any country.
Let us take it for granted that in the US prisoners are not normally tortured and if they are it is against the law and the US would want that discovered and punished. What’s the problem with letting the world verify and confirm this? It would be an example for other countries. If all the developed, democratic, nations allow the Red Cross or some such entity to monitor conditions in their prisons it would be a pretty strong argument to convince China and other countries to do the same.
So, I am not saying at all that the US has any legal obligation to sign this. I am saying I think it is in the long term interests of the US to sign this. Not to mention that it is the ethical thing to do. Erradicating torture is the right thing to do.
If we must get into the finer legalities of UN treaties SmackFu is correct. The issue at hand is the Draft optional protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Which falls under the type of document mentioned in SmackFu’s second protest against my claim that the US needs to comply.
My original point was that politically there is little to no choice for the US to comply or look really uncooperative (made in response to previous somewhat offensive, and needless assertion of autonomy against Sparc’s right to dictate US policy).
The US has ratified a treaty. The US has agreed that the implementation of this treaty shall be dictated though an optional protocol. The rest of the ratifying parties in the free world agree to the provisions in the optional protocol. The US sides with the likes of Iraq in disagreeing to access by the inspectors of the UN, citing autonomy of the 52 states??? Won’t work. The US will have to comply for risk of loosing a) any credibility that is left as re international agreements and b) any capacity to pressure the likes of “the axis of evil” towards reform.
If you ask me they’re fighting windmills on this one.
Sailor’s point on questioning the reasonable stance in resisting inspections is more important in all cases since the minutiae of the ratifying process will only be effects of the stance decided upon.
Sparc
HA HA HA HA HA
After reading the thread on how many states the US has in GQ just now the figure 52 was so stuck in my head that I wrote it. I think I better stop this and take a nap now.
Sheesh!
Sparc
HA HA HA HA HA
After reading the thread on how many states the US has in GQ just now the figure 52 was so stuck in my head that I wrote it. I think I better stop this and take a nap now.
Sheesh!
Sparc
Because Choina is violating human rights.
But “it” refers to completely different things in the two situations. The Chinese position is “our violation of human rights is our internal affair”. The US position is “our making sure tha human rights are not violated is our internal affair”.
Do you really not understand the difference between “you don’t have the right to invade my privacy to check to see if I’m doing X” and “I have the right to do X”? If I object to the police searching my house without a warrant to see if I’m torturing anyone in my basement, would you accuse me of claiming the right to torture people in my basement?
>> Do you really not understand the difference between “you don’t have the right to invade my privacy to check to see if I’m doing X” and “I have the right to do X”?
The Ryan, China does not admit to torturing their prisoners or to any other human rights abuses. They just say to the US “you don’t have the right to invade my sovereignty to see what I may be doing and it is none of your business anyway”. The US then finds support, among other sources, in NGOs like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch to support the fact that human rights are indeed being violated in China. Unfortunately these same organizations find quite a bit to criticise about the US. The US is asking China for greater access and openness to their prisons based on those reports. Why can the rest of the world not ask the same of the US based on the same reports?
Are you telling me there is nothing ever wrong in a US prison? No abuses? The rest of the world is not so sure about what is happening in Guantanamo. The US is demanding more outside access to Chinese prisoners and it should be willing to grant the same thing. To say “we are above suspicion and not subject to the same rules as the rest is silly”.
The trouble is that the UN has little or no moral authority left. Look at some of what they’ve done:
[ul][li]Dreadful anti-Israel bias[]Failure to end slavery in the Sudan[]Failure to properly monitor the Palestinians[]Failure to bring civil liberties to Saudi Arabia[]Failure to bring civil liberties to Iraq[]Failure too bring civil liberties to the former Soviet Union[]Failure to bring civil liberties to North Korea[]Failure to bring civil liberties to Libya[]Having allowed Libya to be a member of the HRCCurrently having Cuba as a member.[/ul]I wish there were an international organization that could monitor and improve civil liberties worldwide, but, unfortunately, the UN isn’t it.[/li]
The UN has been useless in countries with monumental human rights problems. There’s every reason to think that they would be at best useless, and at worst mischievous, if they conducted torture investigations of US prisons.
Frankly, I’m pleased if the US looks uncooperative to Libya, Cuba, and China. That must mean we’re doing things right.
>> Frankly, I’m pleased if the US looks uncooperative to Libya, Cuba, and China. That must mean we’re doing things right
december, as usual you got it all wrong. In fact the US is on the same side as Libya, Cuba and China on this. I guess that must mean the US is on the wrong side then?