Powered by TypePad

« CSI Miami | Main | On It Like A Cheap Suit »

December 08, 2005

Comments

kim

Torture: You know it when you feel it.
=========================================

Cecil Turner

Of course, there is a second related question - is Ms. Rice talking exclusively about torture, or is she including "torture lite"? Ms. Rice mentioned "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment", which, per the WaPo, includes practices that might not be considered to be torture.

I suspect, based on recent reports about CIA interrogations, she overreached a bit.

There is little debate the law forbids torture, and that specifically applies to overseas:

Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years . . .
But if you check out the definitions section of 18 USC 2340, it only covers half of the CAT treaty:
''torture'' means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering . . .
The infamous Bybee Memo covered this in some length, and contended that the "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment" standard did not apply to the torture statute. I think he was right. Hence "torture" would be illegal, but "waterboarding" would not. And that appears to be the actual standard, unless something has changed very recently.

Jor

This is the party of moral responsibility right? (*cough*)

Ari Tai

The law of unintended consequences is likely to hold here.

Given that elites tend to manipulate public emotions to force government thru law and process to eliminate the executive's ability to exercise judgment, intellect (and compassion), we'll likely discover we have caused the military to fall back to a legal process of a courts martial with a summary judgment that condemns those who violate sanctuary to immediate execution. ie. Those who violate the rules of war with regard to identification, organization, and protection of civilians.

As we take each one out for their hanging, we ask the next in line would they like to make it worth our while for them to stay alive for, say, another 72 hours. An unlike Hussein (or Stalin), we won't demand the family buy the bullets or pay for the rope.

Simple. Not cruel. Not unusual (given their lives are already forfeit as a terrorist or spy). Not compassionate.

Not expected.

And likely just as fruitful. Though harder on the troops. But since when has the Left or MSM cared about them?

kim

There is wear and tear where the rubber meets the road.
===================================

Gary Maxwell

Kim

Not sure but I bet there is also wear and some tear where the rubber ( hose ) meets the skin.

Cecil Turner

Simple. Not cruel. Not unusual (given their lives are already forfeit as a terrorist or spy).

I think an argument could be made that would equate to a death threat, which would might constitute a borderline case of torture. Personally, I have nothing against waterboarding in rare cases, and can't see how any serious definition of "torture" would include it. Of course, there are lots of unserious types out there, most of whom have no idea what "waterboarding" is (unlike these guys, who do).

TP

I wonder how they would classify putting them in an MRI machine and telling them they couldn't come out until they cooperated. It would work on me. : ^ )

Bring Iton

Who cares? We are still going to do what it takes to get info from the terrorists. Not Al Queda type torture (decapitation) but U.S. style...aka frat hazing (dog collars, nude paramids, panties on the heads...our frat did waterboarding too, but we used a bucket of beer instead of water)

noah

Since "torture does not work" and waterboarding apparently does, it is not torture. QED. (just kidding...I am just arguing from a faulty tho politically correct premise!)

As long as they don't outlaw effective techniques that are not clearly torture, we have enough for ticking bomb scenarios.

Syl

So let's define specifically what we can and cannot do when we capture someone. Let them know exactly what to expect.

Then they can decide whether to blow themsevles up, or allow themselves to be captured.

It doesn't really matter what the chattering classes say. It doesn't matter whether we're being transparent or not. The terrorists already know.

Seems to me the Americans capture more than the Russians. Somehow the guys that the Russians close in on always just happen to explode before an arrest can be made.

Jordanians arrest people. Many of the ones in Pakistan blow themselves up first. If an Egyptian officer comes close to a terrorist suspect, he goes boom. Same in Saudi Arabia.

THAT is how we know how well Americans treat their prisoners.

All this yakking about it is nonsense.

windansea

Seems to me the Americans capture more than the Russians. Somehow the guys that the Russians close in on always just happen to explode before an arrest can be made.

syl...the above may be true but I recall a story many years ago about some russians being taken hostage in Lebanon?? The russkis found out who the kidnappers were...went to their village and took pics of their families etc....they got the hostages back.

Syl

windansea

You make my point.

Gary Maxwell

Syl

Do you think that quite similiar to those unfortunate accident in the West Bank where " work accident happen in the metal shop factories" that a similar function is happening with the folks in Pakistan and Egypt and Russia. In other words, in at least some cases, do you think the plunger was pushed by someone other than the bomber?

Just food for thought.

Syl

Gary

do you think the plunger was pushed by someone other than the bomber?

It's possible, but I actually give more 'credit' to the explodee than that.

Imminent capture: blow yourself up

Though there probably are instances of: We blew them up but will say they blew themselves up. I think the captors in most cases would rather have them alive for questioning.

Gary Maxwell

Yeah well in most of those places there is no such thing as a press that is independent of the government. So perhaps it was questioning first and then "unfortunate accident". And no one is the wiser. Or cares less.

Syl

Gary

I think that's a bit too cynical.

Bill Arnold

Cecil,
Andrew Sullivan today quotes a passage from James Reston Jr's book "Dogs of God" about a variant on waterboarding used by Torquemada of the Inquisition when the rack didn't extract a confession. It resembles a variant described in the comments you linked to.
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2005_12_04_dish_archive.html#113405754413058935
When the rack did not produce the desired result, the churchmen turned to the water torture. In this hideous remedy, the prisoner was tied to a ladder that was sloped downward, so that the head was lower than the feet. The head was held fast in position by a metal band, twigs were placed in the nostrils, and ropes winched tightly around his appendages. The mouth was forced open with a metal piece and a cloth placed over the mouth. Then a pitcher of water was brought, and water poured over the cloth. With each swallow, the cloth was drawn deeper into the throat, until in gagging and choking the victim nearly asphyxiated. The terror of suffocation was extreme, and the process was repeatedly endlessly, bloating the body grotesquely until the victim was ready to confess ... From the inquisitor's standpoint — for he was there to record every detail — the treatment was easy to administer and left no telltale signs.

Gary Maxwell

too cynical.

Posted by: Syl

Well it might be cynical with a reason. TOO cynical?

I should not doubt the honesty and sincerity of Putin? How about Mubarak? Mussharaf?

Which one of these is being put upon by emphasis of doubt in their full integrity?

Mubarak has rulled with an iron fist for years. The last election he received 88% of the vote.( should be a typo but it isn't and no one in Egypt laughs either). Musharaf took office in a military coup and then stuck around by banning any significant opposition from running in the election. He also said the last AQ dirtbag was a "work accident".

Finally Putin. A former KGB officer which a taste for putting his critics in jail.

Cynical I confess. Too cynical - as in not justified, well I will leave that to others.

Cecil Turner

Andrew Sullivan today quotes a passage from James Reston Jr's book "Dogs of God" about a variant on waterboarding used by Torquemada of the Inquisition when the rack didn't extract a confession. It resembles a variant described in the comments you linked to.

The SERE school waterboard had nothing holding open mouth and nose (it's unnecessary), the rag doesn't enter the mouth, and it's a hose, not a pitcher. Other than that, it's pretty close. Unlike the implication in your paragraph, however, there's no physical danger (unless perhaps a heart condition), it's a mental exercise. I had some interesting conversations with the gents who ran the place afterward, about some of the techniques and why some seemed rather dull. Apparently there's significant individual variation on effectiveness. (And like many of my compatriots, I no longer take Andrew seriously on the subject.)

topsecretk9

(And like many of my compatriots, I no longer take Andrew seriously on the subject.)

Why? Because extreme hysteria on any challenging subject has just taken him over the edge?

Another annoyance, when tons of drony complimentary emails get posted ad nauseam when he feel self conscious or threatened to prove his point.

p.lukasiak

Yes, the administration backed down on its torture policy.

Here's the real clue. NATO has agreed to send 6000 more troops to Afghanistan -- but this contingent will be sent to Southern Afghanistan, where the Afghan insurgency is strongest.

There was obviously a quid pro quo here --- NATO would only send its troops into the south if the US repudiated its torture policies, and abide by the spirit of CAT. (Even so, the Dutch are insisting upon building their own prisons for anyone they capture, to ensure that none of their captives have to be turned over to US custody).

Dwilkers

"Yes, the administration backed down on its torture policy."

Oh for heaven's sake you know no such thing.

Good grief the prisons were IN Europe do you think they didn't know they were there until the WaPo reported it? Or that they didn't have any idea why the administration would do such a thing?

If anything the Europeans are coming onboard because they can see what the left in this country cannot; the war is winding down, Iraqi democracy is standing up, and the US is winning this (the Iraqi) battle.

The administration's "torture policy" is and has been "no torture". There's no place to back down to from there.

TP

p.luk. Great news! If the NATO troops are going outside of Kabul, the war must be over.

TM

OK, good point about the new NATO troops - here is the NY Times on that.

As to whether the US torture policies were a true obstacle, or simply an excuse for inaction - who can tell, and does it matter?

If we get more troops, and the Euros need to pretend that they can't possibly dirty their hands unless we change our CIA policies, well, these are our allies.

As to what has been holding them back for the past three years, again, who knows?

I ranted on this a long time ago, and here is a Jackson Diehl column from July 2004 on the uselessness of our Euro-pals.

TP

Perhaps NATO wants to make sure there are no interruptions in the poppy supply so that Amsterdam doesn't go in to withdrawal.
: ^ )

Cecil Turner

Oh for heaven's sake you know no such thing.

I think he was just giving us a "tortured logic" exemplar. (Good one, too. Thanks, p.Luk.)

TP

Any Europeon decision to send more troops to Afghanistan might have more to do with their gradual awakening to the fact that the Iranians might soon possess nukes and the means to deliver them to Europeon capitals than the torture kerfluffle. The Iranians just don't take the Europeons seriously because they have no respect for soft power (particularly when the Russians and Chinese are fawning over them).

JM Hanes

tops

"Another annoyance, when tons of drony complimentary emails get posted ad nauseam...."

I was one of Sullivan's earliest online supporters, but I always thought his "policy" of only publishing emails anonymously was patently exploitative. Can you imagine him submitting his own remarks for someone else's use without attribution? Quoting from emails "ad nauseum" takes a lot less effort than coming up with your own material when you're otherwise engaged.

I also suspect that Sullivan's periodic flaming of Glenn Reynolds may have as much to do with the state of his visitation stats as anything else. I imagine the occasional instalanche has a beneficial effect on his ad revenues.

Bob Loblaw

The best thing about torture is how incredibly effective it is!

The Bush administration based a crucial prewar assertion about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda on detailed statements made by a prisoner while in Egyptian custody who later said he had fabricated them to escape harsh treatment, according to current and former government officials.

And to think of all the hearts and minds it has won for us as well! Torture, gotta love how it's now part of the face the world sees of the new and improved USA.

boris

crucial prewar assertion about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda ... who later said he had fabricated them

I assume you're talking about Bill Clinton.

p.lukasiak

As to whether the US torture policies were a true obstacle, or simply an excuse for inaction - who can tell, and does it matter? If we get more troops, and the Euros need to pretend that they can't possibly dirty their hands unless we change our CIA policies, well, these are our allies. As to what has been holding them back for the past three years, again, who knows?

There are lots of issues that were doubtless "holding them back", but most of them can be placed under the umbrella of "antipathy to George W. Bush's approach to foreign policy and the 'war on terrorism'. For instance, the US wants to run the whole show, and do things its way --- Europeans believe that a better strategy for fighting terrorism is to treat it primarily as a political and "criminal" matter, rather than the US "militarist" approach. So it would make sense that the Europeans would be reluctant to send troops into the South, where the biggest problems are, as long as Bushco was insisting on doing things its way.

As to why NATO is now willing to send in "fighting" troops, well, as I noted above, the US is willing to now make concessions on the how to wage the war in Afghanistan (in addition to the war on terror in general). But it is also becoming increasingly obvious that the Taliban is making a serious comeback in Afghanistan, and Europe needs to gets more heavily involved in the conflict. Targets in Europe for terrorists are much more vulnerable that targets on the mainland USA. (Even if its American interests in Europe that are targetted, Europe has to do what it can to stop terrorism on its own soil.)

Cecil Turner

There are lots of issues that were doubtless "holding them back" . . .

The foremost is the major European troop providers (France and Germany) most likely wanting to increase the strain on US armed forces to balance the "hyperpower."

Europeans believe that a better strategy for fighting terrorism is to treat it primarily as a political and "criminal" matter . . .

Which works fine, unless the local law enforcement agencies are part of the problem. Hence the US focus on "state sponsors."

. . . as I noted above, the US is willing to now make concessions . . .

Yep, has to be. It's the only possible explanation. (Good one!)

TM

Here is the IHT on the latest deal:

In a major expansion of NATO's role in Afghanistan that could start the withdrawal of some U.S. forces, the alliance's foreign ministers agreed Thursday to add up to 6,000 troops in the south of the country next year. The move would be in addition to the 9,000 NATO soldiers already operating in the north and west of Afghanistan. It comes as the Dutch - who had been reticent to commit troops - accepted alliance assurances that any prisoners handed over to the Afghan authorities would not subjected to torture or the death penalty. The Dutch decision to send 1,000 to 1,100 troops into the more dangerous reaches of southern Afghanistan must still be approved by the Dutch cabinet, possibly on Friday, and then by Parliament in the Netherlands within the next couple of weeks. "We have received additional guarantees," said the Dutch foreign minister, Ben Bot. "I feel quite at ease with defending this in the Dutch Parliament." Public opinion has been inflamed in the Netherlands, as in most countries in Europe, by reports that the United States had transported suspects through Europe to secret jails for interrogation. But U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice insisted at the foreign ministers meeting Thursday that the United States would abide by human rights laws in the expanded NATO operations. "We are a member of NATO," she said. "That means obviously we are signed on to NATO policy." Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, the NATO secretary general, said NATO policy ensured that detainees arrested by NATO forces were treated according to the Geneva conventions and that he hoped the Netherlands could now join the expanded mission.
TM

p.luk = as top specific Euro-reasons for not sending more troops to Afghanistan over the last three years - I am sure they offered reasons, just as they offered reasons for inaction during what, eight years of nothing in former Yugoslavia.

The great thing is, they always have reasons, accompanied by inaction.

clarice

Of course, the Europeans knew exactly what was happening with the prisoners transported to prisons there. They benefitted from it because we shared the information with them and they--having opened their multicultural doors to the weird beards were most at risk. Once the story was published, for domestic reasons they had to reprise the "Casablanca" we're shocked to find out what's been going on in the backroom line. PHEH

Appalled Moderate

The best argument against torture (or spending way too much time thinking about how close to torture we can come) is not what others think of us, but who we are and what we aspire to be.

Frankly, I think the whole torture thing has really enraged Andrew Sullivan and like spirits simply because torture and the endless memoing and thinking about it that has gone on in the bowels of our bureaucracy is so far from our national spirit and our aspirations. As a nation, we are about liberty, freedom and responsibility for one's own actions. Torture is the act of a national spirit that is about safety, security, and I don't want to think about that unpleasent stuff.

PaulV

Query: If torture does not work and waterboarding does; Q.E.D. waterboarding is not torture?

Bill Arnold

I believe that the consensus is that torture works very well for extracting information(of uncertain truth value), stories, confessions.
Regarding waterboarding, I'm now wondering whether the Inquisition applied the most effective techniques first and went to alternatives only if the better techniques failed (i.e. waterboarding less effective than previously applied alternatives like giving the accused pen and paper, or the rack), or if they applied the means of extracting confessions in order of increasing tortuousness (i.e. waterboarding was considered by the Inquisition to be a nastier form of torture than the rack).

Cecil Turner

The best argument against torture (or spending way too much time thinking about how close to torture we can come) is not what others think of us, but who we are and what we aspire to be.

If you're going to write interrogation procedures designed to stay clear of the line, you first have to define where the line is. The memo wasn't a good product, but the thinking was required.

Fiddling with the air conditioning is not torture. Neither, in my opinion, is waterboarding, though I'm willing to consider opposing views. (But, no offense, shrill comparisons to the Inquisition do not impress.)

I think the whole torture thing has really enraged Andrew Sullivan and like spirits . . .

Andrew Sullivan and like spirits are remaining wilfully ignorant on the issue. Their petulance is noted, but not persuasive.

TM

torture and the endless memoing and thinking about it that has gone on in the bowels of our bureaucracy is so far from our national spirit and our aspirations.

I am not prepared to make this arguement(and may never be), but...

Anyone who (a) looked at the level of casualties and the tactics employed in the Civil War;

(b) was familiar with our multiple, deplorable Indian masscares;

(c) was familiar with our fire-bombing of Dresden and nuking of Japan (twice)

would probably *not* conclude that Americans in wartime were particularly squeamish or high-minded.

Obviously, not all of the above is behavior to which we aspire. But it is worth keeping in mind that it may be part of the American spirit.

Well, I am just throwing that out there - I don't think even Dick Cheney wants to go that far.

p.lukasiak

If you're going to write interrogation procedures designed to stay clear of the line, you first have to define where the line is.

no, you only have to define "the line" if you are looking to inflict treatment on prisoners that don't cross the line --- its quite simple to stay clear of "the line" without defining it.

Its fairly easy to figure out what is, and is not, appropriate treatment. Just ask yourself "If your own child was captured by the enemy, how far could they go in extracting information before you objected to the treatment?"

p.lukasiak

If you're going to write interrogation procedures designed to stay clear of the line, you first have to define where the line is.

no, you only have to define "the line" if you are looking to inflict treatment on prisoners that don't cross the line --- its quite simple to stay clear of "the line" without defining it.

Its fairly easy to figure out what is, and is not, appropriate treatment. Just ask yourself "If your own child was captured by the enemy, how far could they go in extracting information before you objected to the treatment?"

Appalled Moderate

Cecil:

I admit to not being able to get through Sullivan's rantings on torture. I think he's right to be upset, but would be served by having an editor on his blog. (Maybe Drezner or Kaus can lend him theirs) Belgravia Dispatch does a better job on the subject.

The problem I have really is one of first principles. What are we doing worrying about this? There's a long-standing set of precedents in US law and international law on what you can do with prisoners. Why the effort to make them suffer more, unless the idea is to see how bad we can make it? And how does that comport with our values as a nation?

But looking past just an idealistic revulsion of the whole idea, the thought that a rethink of policies so that we can get just right to the border of torture but not just there is asking for it. Subtle legal minds can come up with all sorts of stuff that I am sure stays on the right side of the line. But the people executing the policies are under stress and pressure and are likely to ignore the niceties and caveats in an intricately designed dancing on the line policy.

There are just some things you shouldn't do in a Democracy or even think about. This is one of them.

Cecil Turner

Its fairly easy to figure out what is, and is not, appropriate treatment. Just ask yourself "If your own child was captured by the enemy, how far could they go in extracting information before you objected to the treatment?"

Sorry, but that's not on. We do not want to encourage those who systematically flout the Geneva Conventions (which is precisely what terrorists do) by giving them advantageous treatment when captured. The absolute upper limit is what is prescribed for POWs (detention for the duration, without trial). The "golden rule" approach is guaranteed to lead to more of the same.

Cecil Turner

There's a long-standing set of precedents in US law and international law on what you can do with prisoners. Why the effort to make them suffer more, unless the idea is to see how bad we can make it?

Again, there is a good reason to provide a disincentive. Quoting one of those precedents (Ex Parte Quirin):

By universal agreement and practice the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful.
the thought that a rethink of policies so that we can get just right to the border of torture but not just there is asking for it.

I don't see an effort to get right up to the border. Waterboarding is something we do to our own troops for training. If that's the worst thing we do to terrorists . . .

Appalled Moderate

Though it pains me to admit it, my heart ain't bleedin for the Al Q big shots who went to the secret camps and got themselves all waterboarded. These guys chose to ride the tiger. Sorry it didn't work out for them. As TM details above, this attitude is quite American. (I think of Harry Truman's frequent boast that he never had a problem sleeping at night over Hiroshima as the epitome of the American attitude towards war. Nor do I really think this a bad thing.)

What bothers me most is the systematic, bureaucratic development of a system meant to cause the pain, suffering, and information flows that we seem to have had. This does not strike me as the sort of ad hoc brutality that we have used in war, but something far uglier. And the use of this kind of thing against mere foot-soldiers strikes me as unecessary and cruel.

Bill Arnold

Cecil,
You have a point about ignorance. Rough ignorance check: 427 Amazon titles with string "Interrogation" and 791 titles with string "Torture". Yes, very ignorant, and I didn't order any of them, which makes the ignorance willful. I plead squeamishness and a Quaker upbringing.

The Inquisition comparison isn't shrill, it's just interesting.

You are of course correct about needing to define the boundaries. The thinking unfortunately wasn't done adequately IMO.

clarice

Either chat boards are full of liars or they inhibit free speech on the topic or they draw an incredible number of very foolish but high minded people, because polls indicate consistently that most people do support the use of torture to preserve innocent life.

Count me in that majority.

Appalled Moderate

Clarice:

OK, you busted me. I support torture if the person being tortured worked for Fox News or supplied Rush with drugs...But anyone else? Nah. I don't believe Americans should torture because I hate America and what it stands for!

Seriously, the problem isn't that a few people have gotten out of line from time to time under incredible stress. It's that the government is designing a policy that is deliberately testing the line, and applying it to people whose information has no reasonable relevance to preserving innocent life.

Cecil Turner

And the use of this kind of thing against mere foot-soldiers strikes me as unecessary and cruel.

I agree (and would add "counterproductive"). But as far as I can tell, that really hasn't been the case. The few cases of treatment at Gitmo crossing the line were relatively benign and perpetrators disciplined. There were a few real horror stories out in the field (including the after-hours idiocy at Abu Ghraib), but those appear to be the usual isolated discipline failures or criminal behavior that happen in every conflict.

polls indicate consistently that most people do support the use of torture to preserve innocent life.

That's true, but mostly those are phrased in the "ticking time bomb" scenario, which is hard to credit as a real-life issue.

Sue

Appalled,

How close are you to the action that you know "...people whose information has no reasonable relevance to preserving innocent life."?

Appalled Moderate

Sue:

Start here:

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/extraordinaryrendition/22201res20051206.html?ht=

Spider around the aclu site. Make a judgment if you believe, or it's all just biased. It is up to you, if you are truly curious.

Sue

Appalled,

This is what I get when I follow your link:

We're sorry. The page you are looking for could not be found. You may have followed a bad link, used an outdated bookmark, or it may have moved to another part of the ACLU.org website.

Syl

Its fairly easy to figure out what is, and is not, appropriate treatment. Just ask yourself "If your own child was captured by the enemy, how far could they go in extracting information before you objected to the treatment?"

This leaves me speechless.

The Left has a special way of using the concept of children. They are innocents unless they are soldiers. Then our children who have been coerced to fight in this illegal war are babykillers, terrorists in the night, murderers and torturers.

So which concept of children are you referring to?

Syl

AM

I used to have complete faith in the ACLU. I thought they kept us honest.

Until I realized that they not only stretch the bounds of our Constitution, they break them.

They argue for a Utopia which does not and never will exist in Reality.

A healthy society argues. It's this creative tension that is one of the great things about America. The ACLU attempts to remove this creative tension from society by forcing courts to draw lines.

We all, then, become mere followers with no more input into our lives. I truly believe this is harmful to our society as a whole.

kim

Re Dresden and Tokyo firebombing. We claim the moral high ground and rightfully and righteously so, but it's not as if chasms don't open in front of our feet on the way up the slope.
================================================

noah

Crap chattering nonsense. Does waterboarding work? The information I have indicates it does. Obviously it is terrifying...since it scares the shit out of people generally into talking. So the question is: is it torture? I don't think so. That is all this discussion should be about.

Syl

We're all just trying to micro-manage the war...just a bunch of busybodies.

IMHO this hysteria over torture, whatever today's definition is, is simply a proxy for hysteria about Bush's War.

Al Qaeda sites are claiming they killed the latest American contractor they kidnapped. We just haven't found his headless body yet.

It's time to get back to reality.

cathyf
Frankly, I think the whole torture thing has really enraged Andrew Sullivan and like spirits simply because torture and the endless memoing and thinking about it that has gone on in the bowels of our bureaucracy
But that's not what happened. There have been a couple of legal opinions (the Gonzalaz memo), basically pointing out that we have no obligation to treat war criminals as POWs. POWs can't be interrogated under the Geneva Conventions (name, rank, serial number, that's it) so then the bureaucracy created procedures for interrogations. Monty Python is weirdly accurate -- giving a POW the Comfy Chair Treatment to force him to answer questions is a violation of the GC. So if we are going to ask any questions at all of the war criminals then the interrogators need procedures. Because the military needs procedures for everything, and the GC doesn't give any procedures for dealing with war criminals.

As far as "endless memoing" about torture, the only people doing that are Andrew Sullivan and like spirits.

cathy :-)

clarice

Actually, the transport of these prisoners to European jails was a human rights improvement over the Clinton era's rendition program where we transported them to third countries where torture was likely. Not that you'll hear anyone mention that very much.

maryrose

I firmly believe we are treating the insurgents{terrorists much better then any kidnappers are treating their hostages. And they continually take civilians and aid workers. This shows the true barbarism of their actions.

sophy

Welcome to our game world, my friend asks me to buy some wakfu gold .

LOTRO Gold

When you have LOTRO Gold, you can get more!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame