A fairly detailed article spelling out what the War Crimes Act is and how and why the Bush administration is defanging it.
I agree with you Vay. Once a bill has been passed and signed into law, it should never ever under any circumstances be altered, no matter what is going on in the world at the time.
However there two notable exceptions to this rule:
The Civil Rights Act.
The US Constitution.
[quote=“Surly”]I agree with you Vay. Once a bill has been passed and signed into law, it should never ever under any circumstances be altered, no matter what is going on in the world at the time.
However there two notable exceptions to this rule:
The Civil Rights Act.
The US Constitution.[/quote]
Care to make an argument (as opposed to giving attitude) why the bill should be altered in this case, and in the manner of Bush’s liking?
[quote=“Surly”]I agree with you Vay. Once a bill has been passed and signed into law, it should never ever under any circumstances be altered, no matter what is going on in the world at the time.
However there two notable exceptions to this rule:
The Civil Rights Act.
The US Constitution.[/quote]
Care to make an argument why the bill should be altered in this case, and in the manner of Bush is proposing?
[quote=“Muzha Man”][quote=“Surly”]I agree with you Vay. Once a bill has been passed and signed into law, it should never ever under any circumstances be altered, no matter what is going on in the world at the time.
However there two notable exceptions to this rule:
The Civil Rights Act.
The US Constitution.[/quote]
Care to make an argument (as opposed to giving attitude) why the bill should be altered in this case, and in the manner of Bush’s liking?[/quote]
Sure, for one don’t buy Colin Powel’s argument that changing the WPA will make our soldiers less safe. What are the chances that captured soldiers in Iraq would be treated according to the GC, or even in the same universe?
No loss there.
I also think the whole “Torture light” argument is a distraction. There needs to be very specific rules for engagement when it comes to information extraction. “Don’t humiliate them or degrade them” is naive at best. “Don’t chop off their fingers, but standing them naked on jello whilst playing Barbara Streisand” since it is specific, seems to be preferrable.
Comparing it to “Cruel and unusual punishment” is weak as those rules have been repeatedly clarified in US Courts and have stood up just fine.
The WPA needs some revision, or at least some refreshing of its purpose.
If Bush’s proposals were designed to clarify then I would agree. But they are designed to obfucate. You ask for details. Their proposals list a series of offensives that would still be considered war crimes but leaves off the ones that have caused the most controversy: cold cells, standing for extended periods of time, sleep deprivation, and waterboarding. This was deliberate. If they are not on the list then they are subject to the definition of torture and abuse which is much narrower than the GC. In other words, these activities would likely be able to pass muster under the changes because they are not specifically banned.
Make no mistake about it. This is not to clarify anything, but to provide cover for the CIA interogation program. Bush had made it absolutely clear that he wants this program to continue. And we know some of the things that this program has done. It has waterboarded. It has subjected people to cold cells, sleep deprivation, etc. This is not speculation. We have the admission from senior official about the waterboarding of Sheik Mohamad. We have the log of the torture of al Quatani. We have the credible eye witness reports of doctors who assisted in the torture. Torture was done. Bush wants to ensure that it can continue to be done.
Since Hamdan v Rumsfeld, however, there was the danger that CIA operatives could be charged with violating the GC and the War Crimes Act. The Bush admin thought they had gotten around this by getting the OLC to redefine torture and more importantly to argue that GC do not apply to Al Qaeda operatives picked up on the field of battle. But since the supreme court has agrued that GC protections do apply to such people the CIA is in serious shit if it continues with its “enhanced” interrogation techniques. Hence the desire now to rewrite the War Crimes Act to make it impossible for the GC to be used in court to sue an American agent, or charge him with a crime, and to allow for a narrower definition of cruelty and torture than is currently accepted worldwide.
You do know how hard the admin fought against the McCain bill that would ban torture and abuse across the board? You do know how hard Cheney lobbied for at least a CIA exemption? And you do know how Bush signed off on the bill with a presidential statement saying that he could interpret the bill as military necessity demanded?
This was all done to protect the CIA’s right to torture. It was only after Hamdan v Rumsfeld that a new approach became necessary: and that was to do away with GC protections altogether in American law.
As for protecting soldiers, one argument is that if enemy soldiers know they will be treated fairly they will more easily surrender. If they know they may be abused and tortured they will fight to the death. In which situation do you think more soldiers will die?
In addition, John McCain has said that though he was abused and tortured as a prisoner, his captors knews that he had GC protections and it mitigated their behavior somewhat. It also greatly helped with morale to know that his side was not doing the same thing. The sense of moral superiority to his captors helped McCian greatly in surviving.
And they are non lethal. Maybe more soldiers WOULD surrender knowing that in the off chance that they were tortured, at least they wouldn’t be burned or de-fingernailed.
[quote]
Bush wants to ensure that it can continue to be done. [/quote]
And Bush has also brought the whole thing out in the open. I think many people will agree with him that the changes are necessary.
[quote]
But since the supreme court has agrued that GC protections do apply to such people the CIA is in serious shit if it continues with its “enhanced” interrogation techniques. Hence the desire now to rewrite the War Crimes Act to make it impossible for the GC to be used in court to sue an American agent, or charge him with a crime, and to allow for a narrower definition of cruelty and torture than is currently accepted worldwide. [/quote]
Are you unaware of how the law works? Bush is entirely within his right to seek the changes he feels are necessary in the WCA.
[quote]
In addition, John McCain has said that though he was abused and tortured as a prisoner, his captors knews that he had GC protections and it mitigated their behavior somewhat. It also greatly helped with morale to know that his side was not doing the same thing. The sense of moral superiority to his captors helped McCian greatly in surviving.[/quote]
What are you saying? Bush is setting McCain up to win in 2008 on a sympathy/anti-torture vote? 
I like that. It’ll spin well.
And they are non lethal. Maybe more soldiers WOULD surrender knowing that in the off chance that they were tortured, at least they wouldn’t be burned or de-fingernailed.
[quote]
Bush wants to ensure that it can continue to be done. [/quote]
And Bush has also brought the whole thing out in the open. I think many people will agree with him that the changes are necessary.
[quote]
But since the supreme court has agrued that GC protections do apply to such people the CIA is in serious shit if it continues with its “enhanced” interrogation techniques. Hence the desire now to rewrite the War Crimes Act to make it impossible for the GC to be used in court to sue an American agent, or charge him with a crime, and to allow for a narrower definition of cruelty and torture than is currently accepted worldwide. [/quote]
Are you unaware of how the law works? Bush is entirely within his right to seek the changes he feels are necessary in the WPA.
[quote]
In addition, John McCain has said that though he was abused and tortured as a prisoner, his captors knews that he had GC protections and it mitigated their behavior somewhat. It also greatly helped with morale to know that his side was not doing the same thing. The sense of moral superiority to his captors helped McCian greatly in surviving.[/quote]
What are you saying? Bush is setting McCain up to win in 2008 on a sympathy/anti-torture vote?
I like that. It’ll spin well.[/quote]
Bush has not brought anything out in the open. He refuses to specify what the secret techniques are. He claims that doing so would help the enemy adapt which is nonsense. First of all, we have information what those techniques are. Secondly, the army has no problem spelling out exactly what its techniques are for interrogating prisoners. Let Bush come out and say, we want to allow the CIA to torture people. Let him say it. Until he does, stop being disingenuous and pretending this is out in the open.
I am aware of how the law works and in this case I am sure far more than you. But the machinations of the Bush admin are only part of the issue here. Mostly this is a moral issue, plain and simple. Do you agree with torturing your enemies? Do you agree with a tribunal system that allows evidence gained from torture to be admitted and evidence to be withheld from a man on trial. As Lindsey Graham said, it is a mockery of justice to have a system where a man can be sentenced to death without knowing the evidence against him. Trust us, you’re quilty. What civilized country would allow such a Kafkaeque system to exist, let alone vote it in?
The president can try to pass laws that turn national parks into industrial zones. The issue is, as with the above, do want such a thing?
Communist suspects were tortured under the direct supervision of U.S. personnel at Con Son Prison in Viet Nam. It was argued then that they had no Geneva Convention rights because they were “criminal detainees.”
Ironically, the War Crimes Act was passed because there was no legal mechanism before then for prosecuting North Vietnamese who had tortured U.S. soldiers during the Viet Nam war using the same sort of methods the Bush administration is now trying to have redefined as not being torture.
A reserve soldier who fought in Iraq writes why “The President must never be forgiven for what he has done to the reputation of this country”:
[quote]…I think that one of the main drivers in these men’s heads was that they knew, absolutely, that they’d get fair treatment from us, the Americans. We were the good guys. The Iraqis on the line knew they had an out, they had hope, so they could just walk away. (A few did piss themselves when someone told them we were Marines. Go figure.) Still, they knew Americans would be fair, and we were.
Thinking hard on what I now know of history, psychology, and the meanness of politics, that reputation for fairness was damn near unique in world history. Can you tell me of any major military power that had it? Ever? France? No. Think Algeria. The UK? Sorry, Northern Ireland, the Boxer Rebellion in China… China or Russia. I don’t think so. But America had it. If those men had even put up token resistance, some of us would not have come back. But they didn’t even bother, and surrendered at least in part because of our reputation. [b]Our two hundred year old reputation for being fair and humane and decent. All the way back to George Washington, and from President George H.W. Bush all the way down to a lance-corporal jarhead at the front.
Its gone now, even from me. I can’t get past that image of the Iraqi, in the hood with the wires and I’m not what you’d call a sensitive type. You know the picture. And now we have a total bust-out in the White House, and a bunch of rubber-stamps in the House, trying to make it so that half-drowning people isn’t torture. That hypothermia isn’t torture. That degradation isn’t torture. We don’t have that reputation for fairness anymore. Just the opposite, I think. And the next real enemy we face will fight like only the cornered and desperate fight. How many Marines’ lives will be lost in the war ahead just because of this asshole who never once risked anything for this country?[/b][/quote]
time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/0 … _lost.html
That answer your question, Surly? If you want, on www.democracynow.org there are also some very telling stories told by actual US interigators who served in Iraq which serve to underscore why Bush’s torture policy is flat-out wrong. Do an archive search, or I’ll dig them up myself later.
[quote=“spook”]The Tiger Cages of Viet Nam
Communist suspects were tortured under the direct supervision of U.S. personnel at Con Son Prison in Viet Nam. It was argued then that they had no Geneva Convention rights because they were “criminal detainees.”
Ironically, the War Crimes Act was passed because there was no legal mechanism before then for prosecuting North Vietnamese who had tortured U.S. soldiers during the Viet Nam war using the same sort of methods the Bush administration is now trying to have redefined as not being torture.[/quote]
spook, the NVA as a matter of policy executed captured and/or wounded US enlisted men from the very beginning of the war. I’m not aware of any communist government that has ever done otherwise. Treaty or no treaty.
[quote=“Doctor Evil”][quote=“spook”]The Tiger Cages of Viet Nam
Communist suspects were tortured under the direct supervision of U.S. personnel at Con Son Prison in Viet Nam. It was argued then that they had no Geneva Convention rights because they were “criminal detainees.”
Ironically, the War Crimes Act was passed because there was no legal mechanism before then for prosecuting North Vietnamese who had tortured U.S. soldiers during the Viet Nam war using the same sort of methods the Bush administration is now trying to have redefined as not being torture.[/quote]
spook, the NVA as a matter of policy executed captured and/or wounded US enlisted men from the very beginning of the war. I’m not aware of any communist government that has ever done otherwise. Treaty or no treaty.[/quote]
My understanding is that we no longer consider killing the wounded a war crime either:
No Court-Martial for Marine Taped Killing Unarmed Iraqi
"An unidentified U.S. Marine Corps corporal fires his weapon at an unarmed Iraqi lying on the floor of a gutted mosque in Fallujah, Nov. 13, 2004. . . . The U.S. Marine Corps announced that it won’t prosecute that Marine corporal, who was not identified, for his actions. . . . The Marine corporal in question appears to fire a round from his weapon into the Iraqi’s head, and another Marine says, “Dead now.”
The question is … do you want the U.S. to be lumped with said communists on issues of torture?
Great blog on why Congress can’t absolve Bush of war crimes:
existentialistcowboy.blogspot.co … -bush.html
Now if only we could get our government to start actually caring about law again!