"The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism" (Article, convention)

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Buttercup

Not sure if this is the thread to ask in.....but, does anyone know the specific torture methods Shrubhead is trying to get legalized ?

This will give you a feel for the sorts of things being discussed:

Last week, the U.S. army specifically banned military personnel from placing hoods over the heads of detainees, duct-taping their mouths, stripping them naked, giving them shock treatment or using dogs in interrogation.

But the debate is not as specific as that. And THAT is the point. Bush wants bright line rules for what specifically is "torture," to override the guidelines of Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. The obvious problem is that the guidelines were left deliberately vague so that they didn't become the basis of a game of "what can we technically get away with?" The guidelines call for the type of sound, reasonable judgment as to what constitutes inhumane and degrading treatment that a United States Administration and a trained interrogation officer ought to be able to figure out without step by step instructions.

Here's the definition from Common Article 3:

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

An odd thing is happening. The Pentagon wants to keep those methods illegal, while the Administration wants to legalize them.

Not surprising since the Pentagon is staffed by soldiers who, one would expect, realize the imporance of advancing some limitations on conduct during wartime and treatment of POWs.

[Buttercup]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

This will give you a feel for the sorts of things being discussed:

Thank you doppelganger but I was aware of most of this and am wondering what particular methods Bush wants implemented through Geneva. I have heard that the US uses a water torture method that causes the prisoner to fear they are drowning. Also, I've heard of blasting rock music at very high decibels. But, then you pointed out:

The obvious problem is that the guidelines were left deliberately vague so that they didn't become the basis of a game of "what can we technically get away with?" The guidelines call for the type of sound, reasonable judgment as to what constitutes inhumane and degrading treatment that a United States Administration and a trained interrogation officer ought to be able to figure out without step by step instructions.

But in your opinion shouldn't there be specific guidelines as to what can be used and only those methods for interrogation are acceptable? I'm certainly not siding with Bush....can't stand the man and his decisions and policies. But, I'm wondering if Geneva DOES need to rewrite Article 3 so that there are no misuses of "torture" methods.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Buttercup

Thank you doppelganger but I was aware of most of this and am wondering what particular methods Bush wants implemented through Geneva.

The actual law he wants enacted is one that would limit domestic prosecutions of interrogators for Geneva Convention violations. You can read about the technical details of the law they are debating here.

The Bush administration objects to the clause in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions that prohibits “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.”


This standard has been followed for more than a half-century by almost 190 countries, including the United States. The War Crimes Act of 1996, passed by a Republican Congress, makes it a felony to violate the Geneva Conventions. But the Bush administration authorized techniques to handle and interrogate prisoners that clearly break the rules — like prolonged exposure to extreme temperatures, long periods in stress positions, strapping prisoners to metal contraptions and force-feeding them.
The rational response to the court’s decision would be to ban those practices and bring America in line with the rest of the civilized world. But that’s not how this administration works. It asked Congress to change the law — to amend the War Crimes Act to redefine the standards of Common Article 3.


The White House wants to apply an American legal principle, used to prohibit cruel and unusual punishment, that bars treatment that “shocks the conscience.” Mr. Bush wants Americans to believe that the language in Common Article 3 is too vague and makes fighting terrorism impossible.


In fact, the Geneva standard is more specific than the shocks-the-conscience standard. And a vast majority of Guantánamo inmates are not terrorists. In fact, many do not appear guilty of anything, not even fighting United States troops in Afghanistan.


The administration’s real aim is to keep on using abusive interrogation techniques at the secret prisons run by the Central Intelligence Agency. And it wants to make interrogators — and those who give their orders — immune from prosecution.


Finally, the administration wants Congress to ban the use of the Geneva Conventions as the direct or indirect basis for a legal case in American courts. This would seal off the route that a prisoner used in the case on which the Supreme Court ruled in June.

Aside from the torture, the laws proposed by the Bush Administration would allow prosecution of war criminals with secret evidence (i.e. the accused doesn't get to see the evidence being used against him and explain or challenge it) before military tribunals in Guantanamo Bay.

[Buttercup]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

The actual law he wants enacted is one that would limit domestic prosecutions of interrogators for Geneva Convention violations. You can read about the technical details of the law they are debating here.

Aside from the torture, the laws proposed by the Bush Administration would allow prosecution of war criminals with secret evidence (i.e. the accused doesn't get to see the evidence being used against him and explain or challenge it) before military tribunals in Guantanamo Bay.

Thank you once again, doppelganger (would you be opposed to sharing your first name? ) I'll read through it and come back. Sounds sneaky at the outset doesn't it?

[Ciscokid]

Originally Posted by nutshell

Congratulations everyone. You've created another Bush bashing thread.

There aren't enough of them...Bush is horrible as a President. I think he'd be great for standup comedy though...the dude makes me laugh pretty good. Have you ever seen the clip where he's asked about "sovereign nations"?