First, Do No Harm

Daniel Koffler | June 24, 2005

I think it's fair to say that the doctors at Guantanamo Bay were not taught to do this in med school:

The former interrogators said the military doctors' role was to advise them and their fellow interrogators on ways of increasing psychological duress on detainees, sometimes by exploiting their fears, in the hopes of making them more cooperative and willing to provide information.

In response, Erica Jong at the Huffington Post proves that she hasn't learned anything from the Ordeal of Durbin:

Of course Nazi Germany asked doctors to experiment with Jews--thrusting them into freezing water, performing useless operations without anesthesia. But they were Nazis and we're Americans in love with liberty. Right? Also the Nazis thought Jews were subhuman so they got no benefit of empathy. So now we're doing that to Muslims. The Attorney General, Mr. Gonzales, approves.

Comments

|6.24.05 @ 4:40PM|#

Not all Nazi comparisons are specious. If we've got doctors advising interrogators on the most efficient way to mistreat prisoners, then I'd say it's a valid argument.

|6.24.05 @ 4:42PM|#

Repeat things enough, they become the "New Reality," right? At least for the "reality-based party," anyway...

|6.24.05 @ 4:46PM|#

I recall reading about doctors from African countries that were prosecuted under American anti-torture laws for this sort of behavior - telling the interrogators how much more they could take, patching up the victims so they don't die and can be go back for another session, etc.

|6.24.05 @ 4:47PM|#

Man, what's with the cutting and pasting these days. That preview button is there for a reason.

|6.24.05 @ 4:48PM|#

Just remember, Joe, that these African doctors had NOTHING in common with the Nazis. Godwin! Godwin! GODWIN!!!!

|6.24.05 @ 4:49PM|#

Was Sodium Penathol just something used in books as a truth serum? I'd have thought the US would have much better drugs that kept the physical abuse to a minimum and yet would get a lot of info from a subject.

|6.24.05 @ 4:51PM|#

Constantly harping that 'it's not as bad as the Nazis' is a good way to keep sliding down the slippery slope until you're just a cunthair from being Nazis.

Also, the hippocratic oath is no longer a precursor to being able to practice medicine.

Dan Koffler|6.24.05 @ 4:54PM|#

Jennifer: I agree--using doctors to improve the efficiency of psychological abuse is horrific; Jong isn't just comparing that to Nazi tactics, she's saying ours are Nazi tactics.

|6.24.05 @ 4:54PM|#

As long as we stop short of killing 6 million people, whatever we do is OK.

|6.24.05 @ 4:57PM|#

Was Sodium Penathol just something used in books as a truth serum? I'd have thought the US would have much better drugs that kept the physical abuse to a minimum and yet would get a lot of info from a subject.

Shooting up prisoners with drugs? Now that would be a gross violation and (dare I say) a reasonable application of the old "we're no better than the Nazis" label. However, "he's afraid of the dark" just doesn't conjure up the kind of atrocities you associate with Joseph Megele.

|6.24.05 @ 5:03PM|#

Here we go again. You guys read the part where it said increasing psychological duress, right? It did not say anything about freezing people or patching them up so they can endure more torture. Is every drill sergent a Mengele?

|6.24.05 @ 5:11PM|#

There is such a thing as "crying wolf" -- or in this case, "crying Ilsa, She-Wolf of the Nazi SS." This can undermine legitimate concern about being watchful over Gitmo.

To quote in full the paragraph from the NYT snipped above:

The former interrogators said the military doctors' role was to advise them and their fellow interrogators on ways of increasing psychological duress on detainees, sometimes by exploiting their fears, in the hopes of making them more cooperative and willing to provide information. In one example, interrogators were told that a detainee's medical files showed he had a severe phobia of the dark and suggested ways in which that could be manipulated to induce him to cooperate.

"Lights out, and I'm taking your nightlight -- bwahahaha! Also, you're not very attractive, and your mother never, ever loved you. And: Boo! Bwahahaha!"

(Didn't see anything in the article about sodium pentathol, either.)

|6.24.05 @ 5:18PM|#

"Bryan Whitman, a senior Pentagon spokesman, declined to address the specifics in the accounts. But he suggested that the doctors advising interrogators were not covered by ethics strictures because they were not treating patients but rather were acting as behavioral scientists."

Ha! ...Oh stop! You're killin' me!

...He must be moonlighting for David Letterman!

|6.24.05 @ 5:19PM|#

I have to admit that if this is purely psychological, I'm not nearly as distressed by it as I am by some of the stories out of Abu Ghraib (e.g. sodomy).

But psychological mind games aren't just harmless fun and games, they can fuck a person up pretty bad. It might be good if we had some method for making sure that the people being fucked with were in fact bad guys. Maybe something that involved evidence and an adversarial process in an open forum.

Wasn't there some crazy guy named Madison who drafted a document on that very notion? Whatever happened to that subversive radical anyway? I heard somewhere that he tried to wage war against one of the most powerful governments on earth at the time. Well, I hope they showed him who's boss!

|6.24.05 @ 5:25PM|#

"The article in the medical journal, by two researchers who interviewed doctors who worked on the biscuit program, says, "Since late 2002, psychiatrists and psychologists have been part of a strategy that employs extreme stress, combined with behavior-shaping rewards, to extract actionable intelligence."

Isn't "extreme stress" out of bounds?

|6.24.05 @ 5:26PM|#

In fact, I heard that some of the people involved in that insurgency weren't even Christian. They were "deists" or whatever.

Good thing we don't elect those sorts of people to the Presidency in this country!

|6.24.05 @ 5:35PM|#

I don't thoreau, I think you've forgotten one of our most important Constitutional principles. It's the principle that the Constitution doesn't limit the actions of the government, it just affects citizens within our borders or somethin'.

...I don't remember which Federalist Paper that principle was in, but it must have been in one of 'em. ...'cause a whole bunch of trolls said that's the way it is.

|6.24.05 @ 5:38PM|#

How close to Nazis do our politicos have to become before the comparison ceases to be verboten? And mightn't it be too late at that point to take any sort of corrective action?

|6.24.05 @ 5:59PM|#

Is a comparison to doctors who preside at executions out of bounds here?

|6.24.05 @ 6:00PM|#

So, all this angel doctor did was exploit someone's intense, crippling fear of the dark? Hell, that ain't so bad.

"You know what's in Room 101, Winston. Everybody knows what's in Room 101. The thing in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world." Bullshit--it was just a few rats.

|6.24.05 @ 6:05PM|#

Jennifer has nailed it!

Britton|6.24.05 @ 6:17PM|#

Strawmen are thick today.

|6.24.05 @ 6:24PM|#

Jennifer-

Look, normally our leaders would never send anybody to Room 101. But we're at war here! Eurasia is is determined to destroy us, and Eastasia has betrayed us and joined them! We've always been at war with Eastasia!

OK, to be serious, if we're going to send people to Room 101, shouldn't we at least have some sort of process to make sure that they are in fact involved in terrorism? Something that involves evidence and adversarial processes and an open forum? And, to ensure impartiality, maybe we could have this process conducted by some entity other than the executive branch? Like a third branch of government?

Is that too much to ask?

|6.24.05 @ 6:34PM|#

I dunno, Thoreau, I'm too busy wondering about the people who thought that what our doctors did was no big deal: do they also think Winston Smith was a fucking pussy for letting a few lousy rats break him?

|6.24.05 @ 6:36PM|#

Jennifer-

I think people need to realize that sadism (the bad kind, not the kind that people pay prostitutes for) need not be violent to be deeply disturbing and incompatible with the values of a free society.

|6.24.05 @ 6:40PM|#

But psychological mind games aren't just harmless fun and games, they can fuck a person up pretty bad.

I agree with you.

Wait, no, I don't.

Actually, yes, I do.

Wait. No, I don't.

Ha! Screwing with you!

It might be good if we had some method for making sure that the people being fucked with were in fact bad guys. Maybe something that involved evidence and an adversarial process in an open forum.

Maybe you're right. Maybe guilt or innocence should be determined by, I dunno, a group of the accused's peers. A group of ... eleven good men! No ... make that thirteen good men! No! Wait... eleven or thirteen good men, it doesn't matter! Maybe that would be better.

Naaaaah...

|6.24.05 @ 6:49PM|#

Thoreau and Theodore-
Even if these men HAD been proven guilty in a court of law I'd still have serious qualms against it.

To the fools who say this is all no big deal--
Okay, you're right. The guys in Gitmo all deserve exactly what they get. But here's why this bothers me anyway--"mission creep" is our government's specialty. The patriot Act, designed to be used only to catch terrorists, is now used for garden-variety criminals. I see no reason to assume that the use of physical or psychological torture will be the ONE thiing which the government uses only for its originally stated purpose. Sure, NOW it's only being used against those evil Gitmo scumbags (who totally and completely deserve whatever they're getting), but what makes you think it'll never be used against ordinary domestic criminal suspects?

|6.24.05 @ 6:55PM|#

Curious-Sodium Penathol isn't terribly useful as a truth serum. It tends to just make people more suggestible, which can be useful, or can backfire spectacularly. For example, if a person doesn't know anything, or if the interrogator gets overzealous and provides clues that guide a prisoner to desired conclusions, the interrogators can wind up with information from someone without any knowledge of the situation that is often unverifiable and which often suits the goal they were seeking, which, as you can probably guess, is a very dangerous thing. As a result, it's almost never (to my knowledge at least) used. As far as anyone who hasn't read the full text of the MK Ultra project's files knows, there's no such thing as a reliable truth drug.

And, locking a guy with Achluophobia in a dark room doesn't sound too bad, until you realize that the guy they locked in had probably been subjected to several days of sleep deprivation and other tactics before they did it to aid the "softening" process. Ask anyone who has gone for a few days without any sleep; by about the third day just about everything looks threatening. Apart these things sound pretty harmless, but together, and practiced on someone weakened up like that, they could and would be devastating.

|6.24.05 @ 7:02PM|#

I'm not saying this is no big deal (it does really sound like something that could be against ethical vows that the doctors involved made)... But, there is a difference between doctors assisting in torture and psychologists giving pointers on mental duress. And unless they're strapping people's faces to cages and getting ready to let lose a ravenous rat on them (which, I submit, is physical and torture), this isn't Room 101, either.

But, to recap, paraphrase, and extend, the discussion will be:

Step 1) "This is like the Gulag/Room 101!"
Step 2) "No, it doesn't really resemble the Gulag/Room 101."
Step 3) "*sniff* I have a higher standard for America than the USSR or Oceana."
Step 4) "Well, that was a useless discussion..."

Pity, though, because there's an actual issue here - when is it permissible or not to use psychology against suspects/prisoners to get information, and what should define the lines?

|6.24.05 @ 7:08PM|#

Eric-
The point of Room 101 wasn't the rats; it was exploiting a prisoner's great psychological vulnerability. Like f'rinstance, if the government decided to Gitmo me for the treasonous thoughts I express here, I'd HATE for them to know that, despite my generally strong personality, I could be utterly broken by being forced to smoke marijuana while listening to Lycia and writing sarcastic poetry, even though I know full well there are some masochistic fools who'd actually enjoy such a thing. Me, I wouldn't mind so much being kept in the dark for a long while, but obviously this man in Gitmo did. "The worst thing in the world" varies from person to person.

|6.24.05 @ 7:11PM|#

The thought of a presumably free and humane society's government using psychological techniques to custom-design ways to break individuals scares the hell out of me, my previous joking comment aside.

|6.24.05 @ 7:14PM|#

Well, I think there is quite a distance between exploiting phobias of the dark and dipping someone in a tub of freezing water ... or performing surgery on a person without anesthetic ... or even strapping a cage full of rats to a person's face. (And as the novel made clear, Winston was afraid the hungry rats would bite and attack his face, which can happen and is more than a purely psychological threat.)

And not to pick on Daniel too much, but I wonder why he omitted the one specific example of "increasing psychological duress on detainees, sometimes by exploiting their fears," from the paragraph he quoted. Was he afraid such specific information of what was actually being done wouldn't sufficiently feed anyone's expectations of outrage? That smacks of stacking the deck.

There is such a thing as crying wolf, and that eventually sparks only a ho-hum reaction. I think we're seeing that very thing in this thread.

I mean, if even making prisoners scared or upset is out of bounds, what are the interrogators supposed to do? The only means left are asking politely or bribery.

I see no reason to assume that the use of physical [sic] or psychological torture will be the ONE thiing which the government uses only for its originally stated purpose. Sure, NOW it's only being used against those evil Gitmo scumbags (who totally and completely deserve whatever they're getting), but what makes you think it'll never be used against ordinary domestic criminal suspects?

You're right about the expansion of gov't, of course, but I'm pretty sure psychological duress and exploitation of phobias is already used against ordinary domestic criminal suspects. "Look, scumbag, you got two options -- either you play ball and tell us who else was involved, or you're looking at spending the next five to ten years as the roommate of a guy named Bubba the Moose whose favorite martial arts movie is Crouching Cellmate, Hidden Sausage, cappice?"

PS: Since I started composing this online, I see via "Preview" that about three other posts have appeared that I haven't read yet -- sorry about any redundancies

|6.24.05 @ 7:17PM|#

The point of Room 101 wasn't the rats; it was exploiting a prisoner's great psychological vulnerability.

Not exactly. It was about whatever would break a specific person. It was not mere playing on fears, it was the selection of what would crush that person's resistance. There was nothing to suggest that the guy wouldn't have released the rat in Winston's case if he hadn't given in, or that in someone else's case they wouldn't end up blinded, castrated, etc. if they didn't submit soon enough.

|6.24.05 @ 7:21PM|#

"Since late 2002, psychiatrists and psychologists have been part of a strategy that employs extreme stress, combined with behavior-shaping rewards, to extract actionable intelligence."

I hate to repeat myself--well okay, I love to repeat myself--but, even by the twisted standards of the Gonzales Torture Memo, wasn't "extreme stress" supposed to be out of bounds? ...Can some apologist out there explain these sliding standards? ...'cause I just can't seem to keep up.

|6.24.05 @ 7:23PM|#

[Room 101] was about whatever would break a specific person. It was not mere playing on fears, it was the selection of what would crush that person's resistance.

And exploiting that nameless Muslim's fear of the dark wasn't?

|6.24.05 @ 7:26PM|#

The thought of a presumably free and humane society's government using psychological techniques to custom-design ways to break individuals scares the hell out of me, my previous joking comment aside.

Well, in terms of "getting people to give information they don't want to reveal" as opposed to "breaking down all resistance in any way to one's authority, just because", it happens every day in perfectly legal, by-the-book police interrogations.

I think there are lines that shouldn't be crossed, and with more specific information that "they helped them play on people's fears!", I might agree that they're crossing those lines in Gitmo, but I don't buy the idea that the very act of making prisoners scared and unhappy in any way is Evil Nazi Torture™.

|6.24.05 @ 7:33PM|#

Eric-
There's a difference between generic fear (I think anybody would be afraid at the thought of losing their freedom, especially considering US jails) and customized exploitation of a person's unique psychological vulnerabilities. As O'Brien said to Winston when explaining Room 101, sometimes a person's breaking point is something quite trivial, and not dangerous at all.

|6.24.05 @ 7:36PM|#

Porter Goss claims to have current news about UBL. Maybe he should be detained at Gitmo.

|6.24.05 @ 7:38PM|#

And exploiting that nameless Muslim's fear of the dark wasn't?

Well, in the end, did he love GWB?

More seriously, I'll point out some things that I don't know, and neither your nor Thoreau know. How severe was the guy's phobia? What else had been done to him? How exactly did they play on this phobia, and how much of an effect did that have on him? (ie, Did they make him uneasy by turning the lights down to "dim", or did they lock him in pitch-black solitary for a week until he screamed himself bloody-throated?)

There's a spectrum of psychological pressure from a mild-mannered, perfectly kosher police interrogation to rendering someone catatonic. I don't know where the Gitmo interrogations are on that spectrum. I'd really like to know more, but this article doesn't tell me, and I'm not ready to simply assume that anyone involved in it is the Spawn of Mengele.

|6.24.05 @ 7:44PM|#

There's a difference between generic fear (I think anybody would be afraid at the thought of losing their freedom, especially considering US jails) and customized exploitation of a person's unique psychological vulnerabilities. As O'Brien said to Winston when explaining Room 101, sometimes a person's breaking point is something quite trivial, and not dangerous at all.

Isn't it actually more humane to exploit a person's specific but irrational fear, and in the process avoid exposing them to any real danger, than threaten them with the real possiblity of real danger?

|6.24.05 @ 7:44PM|#

There's a difference between generic fear (I think anybody would be afraid at the thought of losing their freedom, especially considering US jails) and customized exploitation of a person's unique psychological vulnerabilities.

Any lengthy interrogation involves some degree of figuring out the subject's unique vulnerabilities and how to play upon them. That in itself is not evil. Evil comes into the picture depending on what you do with that knowledge.

|6.24.05 @ 7:45PM|#

Eric-
The fact that the government won't let us, or the UN, or the Red Cross, know or see what's going on suggests that they're definitely crossing the line. As our own government points out, "Only the guilty have anything to hide," right? Why NOT let the human rights inspectors in, if everything's just fine?

|6.24.05 @ 7:48PM|#

Isn't it actually more humane to exploit a person's specific but irrational fear, and in the process avoid exposing them to any real danger, than threaten them with the real possiblity of real danger?

So if O'Brien never actually intended to open the door of the ratcage, then Winston's treatment would have been humane in your estimation?

Another question: was Orwell wrong when he wrote that scene, implying that there was something uniquely horrible about the Oceanic government's exploitation of people's most intense fears?

|6.24.05 @ 7:54PM|#

The fact that the government won't let us, or the UN, or the Red Cross, know or see what's going on suggests that they're definitely crossing the line.

It suggests or it definitely means, not both...

And it does suggest that, which is why I want to know more. But it also suggests that they think they would end up looking bad while not actually having crossed the line. It also suggests that they think bowing to UN or Red Cross pressure would make them look weak. Those are not good or sufficient reasons, but they're there and plausible, considering the behavior of this administration.

|6.24.05 @ 7:58PM|#

Would all y'all nazi comparators be happier if our team just shot the enemies dead on the battlefield, rather than accepting their surrender and doing mean things to them in order to prosecute the war more effectively?

A lot of these people were not "caught on the battlefield;" they were purchased from Afghan warlords kidnapping innocent people and selling them for the bounties we were paying.

But my workday is finally done, so I'm cutting out and heading home. I'll check this thread later.

|6.24.05 @ 8:06PM|#

So if O'Brien never actually intended to open the door of the ratcage, then Winston's treatment would have been humane in your estimation?

Considering that he'd been beaten and otherwise mistreated before that point, no. And keeping in mind that this was purely gratuitous punishment, since all they wanted was to break Winston (he had no information they didn't know, since they'd given him the "subversive literature" and had arrested Julia along with him), it was just cruelty.

But assuming that they were really trying to get information from Winston regarding terrorist activities, the Room 101 treatment wasn't preceded by torture, and O'Brien really had no intention whatsoever of harming Winston...I'm not sure.

I can't just say "that's OK", but I can't say, "that's obviously just too far". It's near the line.

Of course, we can tweak the scenario. What if it's not Winston with his face in the cage, but O'Brien walking into the room, carrying a rat in his arms that he's petting? Or, more referentially, a rat on a leash?

What, precisely, is the line? I don't know, I just know it's there.

|6.24.05 @ 8:32PM|#

Jennifer: Having to rely upon the word of dubious allies is one of the minor reasons that war sucks. I could argue the semantics and nuances of bounties paid v. caught by our troops, but that doesn't seem so important. Refusing to accept that war is inherently cruel leads to debating everything that every soldier does. If anyone has a nicer way to take ground from hostile forces, hold the ground, and eliminate the enemy's ability to attack, I'm all for it.

Gandhi's tactics depended upon both a general human decency and a particular British sensibility. OBL would have decapitated the "naked fakir".

Winston Smith was a citizen, and his status is important in analyzing his treatment. In USA, citizens used to be given special consideration by the Constitution. That consideration does not fully extend to non-citizen prisoners at Gitmo, or anywhere, no matter how they came to be imprisoned. If we are to grant prisoners rights, then we must also expect of them responsibilities. What are the duties of Gitmo prisoners to USA?
(Smith clearly didn't have USA-level protections, so I wonder what the value of his citizenship was?)

|6.24.05 @ 8:48PM|#

It takes over two years to mindfuck someone to the point where they'll give you useful information?

Good grief! If it takes more than two months you're just a sadistic asshole. Implanting these people with microchips so they can be tracked and letting them go is the easiest way to get information.

|6.24.05 @ 9:12PM|#

Re: Isn't it actually more humane to exploit a person's specific but irrational fear, and in the process avoid exposing them to any real danger, than threaten them with the real possiblity of real danger?

So if O'Brien never actually intended to open the door of the ratcage, then Winston's treatment would have been humane in your estimation?

No. Winston could not reasonably be expected to read O'Brien's mind or know what he really intended. Even if O'Brien did not actually intend to open the door of the rat cage, it was still a threat of real physical harm.

Another question: was Orwell wrong when he wrote that scene, implying that there was something uniquely horrible about the Oceanic government's exploitation of people's most intense fears?

That is a more subtle question. I don't think the real point was that the Oceanic gov't exploited people's most intense fears. Governments do that all the time. (The Japs will rape your wife; your kids will die from smoking pot.) So do advertisers. (Use our mouthwash or everyone will avoid your company. Drink this beer or women will reject you.) That's not the unique horror that the scene was intended to convey.

For me, I think the horror of the scene is: How did the government know that Winston's greatest fear was rats? I haven't read the book in years, but I found a copy online and was able to scan it for references to rats. As far as I can tell, Winston's phobia is only revealed in two places: in a private discussion he had with Julia, and during the interrogation, when O'Brien mentions that Winston once had a nightmare about rats.

So how the hell did the government find out about this phobia? Did they interrogate it out of Julia? Did they get her to betray him? Or do they know from spying on Winston, even in his most private moments, because they can have any citizen under surveillance, any time, any where? Or did they simply beat it out of Winston during an earlier, more crudely brutal stage of the interrogations (which is mostly all a blut to Winston now)?

I think those questions are the true horror that Orwell was trying to talk about. What if the gov't is so totalitarian, pervasive and invasive that it can find out all my most private thoughts and fears -- whether by toture, spying, or turning my own lover against me?

Even then, Orwell had to goose it up a bit for dramatic affect. He chose the fear of rats for a reason. He didn't simply choose a common fear that many of his readers could relate to -- fear of public speaking is common, after all, and O'Brien didn't threaten Winston with that. He choose a fear that had an element of very real physical danger.

Suppose Winston had a fear of the color purple, but kept this fear a deeply held secret, confiding it only to his lover Julia. And O'Brien waltzed into the interrogation room wearing a purple tie.

The scene wouldn't have nearly the power.

But then suppose O'Brien said, "What's the matter, Winston? Why are you sweating? Is it because -- you fear purple?" That would be the only scary thing about the scene. How does he know Winston's most secret fear?

Which does raise a question: How did the guys at Gitmo know the prisoner was afraid of the dark? Did he freak out at lights-out time? Did he demand a nightlight? Or did they beat it out of him? Did they hire some thug back at the guys' homeland to torture it out of his wife? As Eric the .5b pointed out, there's really not enough info here to know whether to be outraged. The fact that some people seem to be eager to be outraged only has the effect of inflaming my skepticism.

TDM|6.24.05 @ 9:18PM|#

We treat prisoners the way we do precisely because we care about the life and liberty of potential victims of terrorism. The greedy strategy principle to 'first do no harm' and not attempt to collect information to prevent terrorism is the most inhumane action we could take. It would be nice if we had the capability to precision target information from detainees without causing discomfort but we don't. We must use the same tactics uses by all regimes throughout history, creating a large difference in the 'payoff' for the prisoner to get them to voluntarily choose to reveal the information that we want. Causing extreme discomfort, especially cultural discomfort, to obtain information from prisoners in order to protect victims is the strategy that will lead to the least inhumane outcome.

|6.24.05 @ 9:31PM|#

"Refusing to accept that war is inherently cruel leads to debating everything that every soldier does. If anyone has a nicer way to take ground from hostile forces, hold the ground, and eliminate the enemy's ability to attack, I'm all for it."

Perhaps those of us who were against starting a war for emotional reasons, with a country that was not a threat, did so because we DO recognize that "war is inherently cruel." Really, is this 1969? Why is it assumed that everybody who's against half-baked vanity militarism is simply living in some hippie pacifist bubble and just doesn't understand that war is hell?

And in view of this administration's confusion over motive, goals/objectives or even who the goddamn enemy is, please excuse my skepticism about their good intentions.

|6.24.05 @ 9:35PM|#

This would be a much smaller problem if we had granted POW status to prisoners at Guantanamo and Abu Gharib, whether they were entitled to the status by treaty or not. We wouldn't have had to try them for any crime (Since when do you have to try POWs?) and we wouldn't have all these horrendous prisoner abuse stories (I know of at least five documented cases of prisoners dying under interrogation.)

I see only two advantages that the Bush Administration might have seen in rescinding its original decision to treat "detainees" as POWs: 1) The Administration thought we wouldn't have to release "detainees" at the end of hostilities and 2) The Administration assumed that the "detainees" weren't covered by the Conventions. Are there any other advantages to not classifying the "detainees" as POWs?

...When the Supreme Court decided that the government's treatment of detainees was covered by the Constitution if not by treaty, it forced the Bush Administration to release "detainees" for lack of evidence--let's hope none of them were dangerous. Furthermore, if just some of the descriptions of what's happened at Guantanamo are accurate, the treatment of "detainees" has been tortuous even by the pathetic standards of the Gonzales Torture Memo.

Neither of these outcomes--prematurely released "detainees" or support sapping torture allegations--would have occurred to the same extent if the Administration had simply maintained its original decision to treat these people as Prisoners of War.

If I separate myself from the moral side of this argument for a moment, and that's hard for me to do, I have to ask myself a question. What could possibly make having to release potentially dangerous prisoners prematurely and exacerbating the potential for disgusting abuses in places like Guantanmo worthwhile? The only answer I can come up with is having somehow foiled a terrorist plot against American citizens.

...If our interrogations had averted such a plot, what are the chances we would know about it? Isn't it likely that the Administration would have crowed by now?

|6.24.05 @ 9:54PM|#

"We must use the same tactics uses by all regimes throughout history, creating a large difference in the 'payoff' for the prisoner to get them to voluntarily choose to reveal the information that we want."

You're right in that this is a matter of national character, but I would respond that the United States of America is different than all regimes throughout history in that, as a matter of policy, we don't torture people.

...that's one of the reasons it's worth defending.

"Causing extreme discomfort, especially cultural discomfort, to obtain information from prisoners in order to protect victims is the strategy that will lead to the least inhumane outcome."

Once again, causing extreme discomfort is a no-no, even by the pathetic standards of the Gonzales Torture Memo.

"We conclude below that section 2340A proscribes acts inflicting, and that are specifically intended to inflict, severe pain or suffering, whether mental or physical. Those acts must be of an extreme nature to rise to the level of torture within the meaning of Section 2340A and the Convention."

Gonzales Torture Memo

|6.24.05 @ 9:59PM|#

Rick: The war exists. The reasons for against its beginning seem to be separate from how it is conducted. Those who are unable to make such a distinction are closer to idealist hippie types. Arguments were along the line of "that's not how we'll win" are more relevant to the current situation than arguments like "Bush sucks and Abu Ghraib proves it".

It does no service to insist that we withdraw because war is hell. The hawks are fighting not for a love of hell, but out of a fear of violence delivered upon citizens. Convince people there's no threat now, not two years ago, and you'll be a long way toward eliminating detainee abuse.

|6.24.05 @ 10:08PM|#

Clearly, Washington et al were equivalent to Nazis. They didn't arrest British soldiers and try them in open court, having them judged by a jury of their peers. Or Peers, as the case may be. They just shot at them.

Come to think of it, American soldiers in WWII were just like the Nazis. They also didn't arrest Japanese and German soldiers for trial; they shot them, too. Except for the ones put in POW camps, but I don't think that included any non-uniformed fighters- those were executed on the spot.

People, people, people. This isn't street crime, it's a WAR. If you're going to fight a WAR, it will not be done following constitutional principles. Afghan warlords are notoriously unresponsive to subpoenas and depositions...

|6.24.05 @ 10:10PM|#

Ken- you can't continually question POW's. Hence, no info to be gleaned. Geneva Convention and all.

|6.24.05 @ 10:17PM|#

Eh, I should have added you can't use any of the methods we keep hearing about when questioning.

|6.24.05 @ 10:30PM|#

"Clearly, Washington et al were equivalent to Nazis. They didn't arrest British soldiers and try them in open court, having them judged by a jury of their peers. Or Peers, as the case may be. They just shot at them."

That's a very poor analogy. Washington ordered that the Hessians he captured be treated well and saw to it that they were well treated. In fact his courtesy was such that when the war was over, hundreds of his former Hessian prisoners (if not more) chose to become Americans.

...Did I mention that these were the same Hessians who murdered his men in New York?

Americans have held the good treatment of POWs as a point of honor ever since, and your pathetic attempt to sully that tradition and, indeed, sully the reputation of George Washington by suggesting that he mistreated his prisoners is, well, quite frankly, it's disgusting.

"Come to think of it, American soldiers in WWII were just like the Nazis. They also didn't arrest Japanese and German soldiers for trial; they shot them, too. Except for the ones put in POW camps, but I don't think that included any non-uniformed fighters- those were executed on the spot."

Two questions:

1) Have the silly quips of politicians, recently in the media, and their attendant, public apologies taught you nothing?

2) Why can't you tell the difference between combat in the field and using physicians to maximize the suffering of prisoners?

"People, people, people. This isn't street crime, it's a WAR. If you're going to fight a WAR, it will not be done following constitutional principles. Afghan warlords are notoriously unresponsive to subpoenas and depositions..."

I think we should treat them as Prisoners of War.

|6.24.05 @ 10:42PM|#

I know Happy Jack. So what was the up side of treating them like "detainees" rather than prisoners? Let's quantify it.

How much intelligence did the non-POW interrogation provide? Was it worth releasing "detainees" prematurely? Was it worth all the damage that the Abu Gharib scandal did to morale and support for the War on Terror? Was it worth whatever impetus it may have provided the insurgency?

Did we, in fact, get more and better intelligence than if we had treated these "detainees" as POWs?

...Aren't these the questions we should be asking?

|6.24.05 @ 11:22PM|#

The real question we should be asking is what the fuck kind of terrorist is afraid of the dark?

|6.24.05 @ 11:26PM|#

Hessians were UNIFORMED military. Does that distinction escape you? Washington was not as generous with British prisoners...

"using physicians to maximize the suffering of prisoners"

Of course, you made that part up. You started with actual fact (doctors assisited in assisting with physical and psychological coercion during interrogation), took it to a reductio (doctors maximized suffering), then presented it as fact. That's not a particularly honest way to make your point.

"I think we should treat them as Prisoners of War."

Fine. You of course disagree with the Geneva Convention in this regard. The GC very specifically distinguishes between uniformed military and, um, "irregulars." And the reason for this distinction is specifically the protection of civilians. Now, you may think that moral preening trumps protection of civilians, but most civilized humans don't.

As to your question 1, something is not necessarily wrong even if a politician says it. Understandable mistake, though, given the laws of probability.

|6.24.05 @ 11:27PM|#

Sorry for the bad editing.

|6.25.05 @ 12:10AM|#

"Of course, you made that part up. You started with actual fact (doctors assisited in assisting with physical and psychological coercion during interrogation), took it to a reductio (doctors maximized suffering), then presented it as fact. That's not a particularly honest way to make your point."

I'm neither a linguist nor a philosopher. I'm certainly not perfect; I may have made a mistake.

I don't see any reason to doubt the truthfulness of the following quote:

"Since late 2002, psychiatrists and psychologists have been part of a strategy that employs extreme stress, combined with behavior-shaping rewards, to extract actionable intelligence."

...and from that (among other things), I came up with, "...using physicians to maximize the suffering of prisoners?" They employed "extreme stress" and they used "behavior-shaping rewards", do you really think saying that they maximized the suffering of prisoners is intellectually dishonest? How would you describe it?

...as opposed to when Americans shot Nazi soldiers on the battlefield? That is, you seemed to negate the difference between what Americans did to Nazi soldiers on the battlefield and what these doctors did to prisoners in places like Guantanamo. You see, I don't see a big difference between how Americans should treat prisoners once they're in custody--uniformed or not--that's my point.

I mentioned it above. I suspect we would have been better off if the Bush Administration had maintained its original decision to treat prisoners in accordance with the principles of Geneva, regardless of whether they were entitled to that treatment by treaty.

|6.25.05 @ 12:36AM|#

Look, I'm no lawyer. I will concede, at least for the sake of argument, that under the applicable laws and treaties there's no legal problem with treating these guys however we want.

And if they are in fact terrorists, well, I won't get too upset if we have the most sadistic mofos on the payroll fucking with their heads.

My concern is related to notions like "burden of proof." Yes, I know, there's no legal obligation to treat them fairly. But even if there's no obligation, it might still be a good idea.

Why? 2 reasons:

1) The wimpy liberal one that you guys can and will disregard: What if they're innocent? Is it right to take an innocent guy, incarcerate him, and subject him to long sessions with some sadistic mofo who will get inside his head and push all of his buttons? Doesn't that seem, I dunno, immoral? Inhumane?

But I know a lot of people here don't give a shit about that. So here's reason #2:

2) Every minute that an innocent person spends in Room 101 is a minute that a terrorist could have spent in Room 101. Every minute that a shrink spends studying an innocent man's profile is a minute that he could have spent figuring out even more creative ways to torment an actual terrorist.

And while many of the guys at Gitmo are indeed terrorists, at least some of them have turned out to be guys who didn't pay enough bribes, um, I mean, taxes, to the local warlord.

And yes, I know, the executive branch figured that out and corrected it. So far the executive branch has apparently done a good job of policing itself in that regard. But, and I know I'm just being paranoid, I subscribe to the quaint notion that even a well-behaved executive branch will eventually start to oppress its citizens if it's kept off a leash.

I still think we need to examine evidence in an open forum via an adversarial process before we send somebody to Room 101. Is that so radical of a notion?

|6.25.05 @ 12:49AM|#

Thoreau:

So if they are terrorists, you have no problem with sicking the sadists on them. Interesting. That would mean that if we can use a term to define the other that's dehumanizing enough, anything goes. Other terms that have copped up in the past are vermin, scum, Untermenschen.
I think I still prefer due process.

|6.25.05 @ 12:57AM|#

Hillel-

If they are terrorists and they have information that could save lives, then some of my reservations go away.

But my reservations only go away if we have some objective method for ascertaining that they are in fact terrorists in possession of vital information. Like due process.

Anyway, I don't think any of us know enough to say for certain that these forms of interrogation are inappropriate for guilty people. So I'll put some objections on hold as far as the methods, and instead focus on the burden of proof.

|6.25.05 @ 1:03AM|#

Thoreau:

I think your use of the term sadist was entirely appropriate. There is scant evidence that torture is an effective means of getting credible information. Under torture most human beings will say what they think the torturer wants them to say. It is the dehumanization of the detainee that justifies the torture, not the need for information. That's where the sadists come in. When we find ourselves endoring and cheering the use of torture, we become viacrious sadists.

|6.25.05 @ 1:12AM|#

Hillel-

Look, I'm trying to make arguments that might change minds on this forum. A lot of people want to get tough, and they won't be sold by arguments about the morality of unleashing the sadists. However, at least a few of them might be sold by arguments about due process.

raymond|6.25.05 @ 1:14AM|#

was Orwell wrong when he wrote that scene, implying that there was something uniquely horrible about the Oceanic government's exploitation of people's most intense fears?

imo His point was not that governments are willing to use horrible means to achieve their ends. His point was that each of us has a fulcrum-point at which we can be tipped into betraying our deepest held values.

"Don't do it to me, do it to her."

For some of us, one possible tipping point is "positive-reward". Would you let your wife sleep with Richard Gere for $1 million? Would you buy forced-labour-made toys from China to save a buck? But for everyone (perhaps), there is a negative fulcrum point. Rats, the dark, menstrual blood, brown people...

For many Americans today, the tipping point is al Qaeda - your room 101.

Listen to Big Bush. One-legged Zarqawi, terrorists, WMDs, war in Afghanistan to "get bin Laden". Terrorists, terrorists, terrorists.

As awful as the Taliban and Saddam were, freeing people from their brand of big-brotherhood was not the real motivation behind America's eagerness to sacrifice the lives and limbs of thousands of her young people and of thousands and thousands of innocent foreigners.

Nor, even, is capturing Zarqawi, destroying WMDs, or getting bin Laden - none of which has been accomplished.

The goal is maintaining power.

Inalienable rights? Life, liberty, property? Human dignity? How easy it has been to get you people to give up those values.

Big Brother couldn't exist without Winston, just as Bush - this empty-headed alfred-e-newman poster of a man - couldn't exist without you and your low threshold of fear.

raymond|6.25.05 @ 1:19AM|#

And if they are in fact terrorists, well, I won't get too upset if we have the most sadistic mofos on the payroll fucking with their heads.

I don't believe you, thoreau. I don't believe you for a minute.

|6.25.05 @ 1:21AM|#

Thoreau:

But in fact, you're arguing for the morality of the sadist. If it's terrorists we're dealing with, in your view, at least as stated, we should bring the sadists in. Do you have any idea how slipppery terms like "terrorist" are? Someone who suspends due process on the basis of this or that exception isn't making a very effective argument for it.

|6.25.05 @ 1:30AM|#

"Anyway, I don't think any of us know enough to say for certain that these forms of interrogation are inappropriate for guilty people."

I'm interested in why this doesn't apply to dangerous criminals here in the United States. What if they have information that can save lives?

...I mean, so long as we convict him first, if torturing a psycho molester can save lives, why not torture him? My answer may sound absolutist and oversimplified, but I really do think this speaks to national character.

I'd like to think we'd rather set however many guilty men free rather than convict one innocent man. ...that we'd prefer the associated risks to unreasonable searches and seizures. ...that we'd rather enjoy a free press, and let the racist bastards in the Klan print their propaganda. If tolerating weird cults is the price of freedom of religion, I'd like to think that most of us were only too happy to pay it. I'd take the chance of being shot in a robbery rather than see the right to bear arms repealed.

...And, personally, I'd rather take my chances with a terrorist attack than approve of having someone tortured to protect me.

|6.25.05 @ 1:32AM|#

Ken:

You make excellent points. I hope Thoreau still reading.

|6.25.05 @ 1:34AM|#

Ken:

Except for the right to bear arms. We might differ there. Assault rifles?

|6.25.05 @ 1:47AM|#

I never argued for suspending due process.

My main point is that, whatever we might do to a prisoner (if anything), there should first be a burden of proof. That's my main point. Let's get some due process and burden of proof in, because it's the one thing that I think has the most appeal, even among people who are generally all in favor of getting really aggressive.

In the process of setting aside other issues for the sake of argument, I adopted some rhetoric that doesn't accurately describe my stance. But my essential point is that nobody should be subject to the punitive powers of the state without due process.

Now, what if that burden of proof is satisfied through some sort of due process? I'm going to remain somewhat agnostic on the question of what is and isn't OK because I don't feel I have enough info. Any interrogation that goes beyond "Do you feel like talking?" is going to involve some combination of carrots and sticks. At the most benign end the sticks could be loss of privileges for a prisoner. At the most extreme (and clearly unacceptable) end the stick will be violent. In between, well, the one thing I'll say for certain is that sticks should only be used in accordance with rules. If interrogators get to cross lines without penalty then sadism will set in, and sadism involves an element of terror that transcends the particulars of the punishment. And even if one (hypothetically) doesn't care how much terror the inmate experiences, we should all be scared by the thought of government agents slipping their leashes.

|6.25.05 @ 1:56AM|#

Thoreau:

In these days of privatization, one might worry about private contractors "slipping their leashes," depending on how many functions the gobernment has out-sourced. Why can't you simply acknowledge that you were wrong to endorse the torturing of terrorists? It's a proverbial slippery slope that depends on one's definition of a terrorist.

raymond|6.25.05 @ 1:59AM|#

Oh good. You're not sleeping yet.

Here's an extremely (e x t r e m e l y) long article about "torture lite".

My favourite bit is the last sentence:

Then we'll discover how much gratitude or resentment has accrued to us in the places where we've operated, among the descendants of those we've detained.

The idea, I think, is that torture is ultimately counterproductive. What you do now is going to come back and bite you in the @ss.

The way American handling of Saddam v. Iran did. And of Afghanistan v. the USSR. The way you're going to regret your policies towards Pakistan.

Because what you fail to see is that in the long run respect for fundamental human rights will allow you to avoid really awful consequences.

(Not "you" as in thoreau. "You" as in Americans.)

|6.25.05 @ 2:02AM|#

Why can't you simply acknowledge that you were wrong

I am a federal employee under the Bush administration. We don't make mistakes. And if we do, we get a Medal of Freedom anyway! ;)

|6.25.05 @ 2:04AM|#

Thoreau:

I take that as an admission of error. Well done.

|6.25.05 @ 2:12AM|#

Hillel-

I'm good at saying things without saying them. Once upon a time, a very long time ago, under circumstances that I'd rather not describe in detail, I was told to lie by people with authority over me. But nobody told me to lie convincingly.

A long time ago, while hanging out with some friends and bullshitting, the talk turned to some embarassing stuff. I didn't really want to admit to something, but I knew they'd give me hell until I did, so I said "I'm going to lie and say 'no'."

And from now on, rather than admitting to mistakes, I'll announce that as a federal employee under the Bush administration I've earned a Medal of Freedom.

|6.25.05 @ 2:14AM|#

Oh, and for the record, I'm probably obligated to say that technically postdocs aren't federal employees. Technically our salary is part of a research grant and for the purposes of paperwork we aren't considered "employees." But if our paycheck is signed by the Sec. of the Treasury, and we take our orders from bona fide federal employees, and we work on federal property, well, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

Phil|6.25.05 @ 9:00AM|#

People, people, people. This isn't street crime, it's a WAR.

This doesn't become any more true the more people say it. Tell me, whose surrender will we be accepting at the end of this war?

|6.25.05 @ 10:09AM|#

Even assuming that this is a true "war," it seems like a different war from any we've fought before--namely, because it seems that the only way we can win is to become the kind of country that's not worth defending. Do we want to be the sort of country that ignores intertnational treaties and tortures prisoners (sometimes torturing them to death) and makes no distinction between innocent brown men and guilty ones? That holds hostage the innocent family members of guilty people? And tells outright lies in order to get into war in the first place? We've gone far down that road already, but there's still at least a CHANCE that we can turn back. But I think the point of no return is fast approaching.

|6.25.05 @ 10:14AM|#

Oooh, and here's another goodie: do we want to be the kind of country whose OWN ALLIES find our behaviors reprehensible and illegal? Here's a story on today's CNN; Italian authorities have issued arrest warrants against 13 CIA agents for kidnapping a "terror suspect" and shipping him off to a country that doesn't even pretend to have scruples against torture.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/06/24/italy.arrests/

|6.25.05 @ 11:47AM|#

What if their worst fear is being detained? If you want to argue that turning lights out is torture, then couldn't you also argue that holding them at all is torture? It must be psychologically damaging to not see your family and not be free. I'm not saying that there isn't untoward activity at Gitmo, but I don't think calling this torture helps accomplish anything other than damage the credibility those who call torture when it really is.

|6.25.05 @ 12:18PM|#

Here's a thought: Some people on this forum have assured us that, as a matter of law, we aren't obligated to provide due process for unlawful combatants captured on the battlefield.

Well, in this War on Terror, the home front is a battlefield. What's to stop the government from deciding that anybody captured on the home front is no longer subject to a trial and due process?

You can say I'm paranoid. And I doubt that will happen overnight. But if we adopt this mindset that war is a blank check for the executive, and that this war on terror is going to last a very, very, very long time, then checks and balances will inevitably erode. That isn't paranoia, that's just history and human nature.

Ten years from now, when pot smokers are arrested as unlawful combatants for "supporting terror" in a "war zone" (the home front), what will you say? You'll be against it then, but will you acknowledge that the erosion of due process began when we decided that due process is no longer necessary for even the most extreme forms of punishment?

|6.25.05 @ 1:59PM|#

thoreau: Citizens, wherever captured, have (or used to have) Constitutional rights.

Phil: An enemy without national identity is one of the unsolved problems of 4th Generation warfare. I used to think of terrorism as more of a police problem. It can still be fought, I think, largely with police techniques, but the enemies/criminals seem to have as a goal our surrender. One of their strengths is our inability to adjust to their tactics.

Jennifer: Your warnings are part of the how a 4G enemy conducts war. By threat, without much direct violence, the target (USA) is brought into internal conflict in order to reduce or eliminate its (our) capacity to attack or interfere with their aims.

I'm not aware of a solution by which USA might keep its identity and principles intact while fighting what sure seems to be an avowed enemy (or confederation of enemies) who does not fight by the clear and distinct rules of war that used exist 50 years ago. If USA does nothing but proudly trumpet it moral position, it seems pretty clear that Al-Q will continue murdering us. USA disengaging from world trade is, in essence, a surrender. Somehow, we must be vigilant without being paranoid, engaged without being domineering, and willing to act violently sometimes. Rhetorically, kind of a combination of TR and FDR.

www.d-n-i.net/second_level/fourth_generation_warfare.htm

|6.25.05 @ 2:32PM|#

"I still think we need to examine evidence in an open forum via an adversarial process before we send somebody to Room 101. Is that so radical of a notion?" - Thoreau

Military tribunals are the way that's supposed to work. I'm open to the argument that these guys don't come before these tribunals often enough for "release hearings" or that some of them didn't get one before being shipped off to detainment. If that's the case it needs to be fixed.

"...maybe we could have this process conducted by some entity other than the executive branch? Like a third branch of government?" - thoreau

There's congressional oversight of the military, but I'm not opposed to letting SCOTUS get into it as well.

"But, and I know I'm just being paranoid, I subscribe to the quaint notion that even a well-behaved executive branch will eventually start to oppress its citizens if it's kept off a leash." - thoreau

Amen Brother! The unchecked Executive is the scariest thing about our gov't.

"The fact that the government won't let us, or the UN, or the Red Cross, know or see what's going on suggests that they're definitely crossing the line. As our own government points out, "Only the guilty have anything to hide," right? Why NOT let the human rights inspectors in, if everything's just fine?" - Jennifer

We do let the ICRC and the reporters in. How else do you explain the endless news reports, complete with photos and videos of Gitmo and Abu Ghraib?

"We treat prisoners the way we do precisely because we care about the life and liberty of potential victims of terrorism. The greedy strategy principle to 'first do no harm' and not attempt to collect information to prevent terrorism is the most inhumane action we could take ... Causing extreme discomfort, especially cultural discomfort, to obtain information from prisoners in order to protect victims is the strategy that will lead to the least inhumane outcome." - TDM

The most libertarian approach I've seen thus far. Brings the real question in this discussion to the front:

How far are we as a nation willing to go to protect detainees "rights" vs. how far we're willing to go to win this war, protect U.S. citizens, and conserve U.S. military lives and assets?

|6.25.05 @ 2:39PM|#

"This would be a much smaller problem if we had granted POW status to prisoners at Guantanamo and Abu Gharib, whether they were entitled to the status by treaty or not." - Ken Schultz

It's amazing how far one can take a false statement without anyone throwing the BS flag. The false statement, in this case, is that we do not extend Geneva to these guys. We do. By Presidential order. For someone who never stops repeating "Read Schlesinger!" you should have realized that by now. The Bush Memo orders Geneva be extended to detainees, and all the conclusions you make about "torture" revolve around somehow making that document something it's not. As for, "this would be a much smaller problem" ... this IS a much smaller problem than you make it out to be because it is limited to those who have violated military law in their handling of detainees.

"I think we should treat them as Prisoners of War." - Ken Schultz

Me too. And we do. According to presidential order and EVERYTHING. Military personnel who don't are in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (not to mention the presidential order in the Bush Memo) and find themselves locked away in Leavenworth.

"I don't see a big difference between how Americans should treat prisoners once they're in custody--uniformed or not--that's my point." - Ken Schultz

But the Geneva Convention DOES make that distinction. That's why it's in the best self-interests of those in uniform to follow it, so that they receive the protections of Geneva in the course of battle or during captivity. Those who don't fight according to Geneva aren't afforded its protections, as specified in the treaty itself.

The point of Geneva is to minimize the horror of war by codifying its conduct. The treatment of prisoners is one of the carrots intended to ensure that wars are fought IAW Geneva. Not following the Law of Armed Conflict (like many of the detainees have!) would normally forfeit their right to POW status and its protections.

However, Bush decided to extend it to them anyway. That eliminates the incentive to follow Geneva by the guys shooting at us, blowing up IEDs at us and suicide bombing us in crowds of the people they claim to fight FOR.

In my opinion, Bush's presidential order puts military personnel at unacceptable risk by encouraging Geneva-prohibited tactics by our enemy. Many in this country believe we can "fight fair" (as they se it) and still win against an enemy who has no reason to fight according to the Law of Armed Conflict.

Want to minimize the number of U.S. troops coming home in bodybags? Put the reciprocity portion of the Geneva Convention into play and let our military engage the enemy the way they are engaging us.

But no, there's too much "John Wayne" mentality. I've talked to people who believe that it's only fair that we stop shooting at the bad guys if they run out of bullets, even if the refuse to surrender. Sure, that may be moral high ground, but it is fundamentally counter-survival.

(For the record: I'm not ascribing this to anyone on this forum, that was a face-to-face conversation. I don't want anyone to assume I'm talking about them!)

|6.25.05 @ 3:18PM|#

Jennifer: Your warnings are part of the how a 4G enemy conducts war.

Let's just cut to the chase and accuse her of stabbing the US in the back.

Jennifer, it's all your fault!

|6.25.05 @ 3:31PM|#

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Its the new N-Word!!!!

NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI

|6.25.05 @ 3:35PM|#

dr. t: I might prefer to call Jennifer a unwitting tool of the enemy rather than a conspiring traitor. She was a handy example of how reasonable human and humane impulses are exploited by the genius planners of 4G strategy. But, hey, if she'll just take all the blame, maybe we can move on...

An afterthought from your 12:18 post: If pot smokers aren't hassled for being in the "war zone", they'll be hassled for being in a school zone. Piecemeal tyranny works about as well as contiguous tyranny.

|6.25.05 @ 6:30PM|#

"It's amazing how far one can take a false statement without anyone throwing the BS flag. The false statement, in this case, is that we do not extend Geneva to these guys. We do. By Presidential order. For someone who never stops repeating "Read Schlesinger!" you should have realized that by now. The Bush Memo orders Geneva be extended to detainees, and all the conclusions you make about "torture" revolve around somehow making that document something it's not."

Am I to understand, rob, that you think that the current policy of the Bush Administration is to treat "detainees" at Guantanamo in accordance with the Conventions as Prisoners of War?

The memo to which you refer is dated February 7, 2002--the Schlesinger Report labeled it as Appendix C. Donald Rumsfeld, on the advice of Antionio Gonzales, subsequently changed policy in regards to the treatment of "detainees", most notably between December 2, 2002 and April 16, 2003.

It is written:

"The study led to the Secretary of Defense's promulgation on April 16, 2003 of a list of approved techniques strictly limited for use at Guantanamo. This policy remains in force at Guantanamo (see Appendix E)."

----The Schlesinger Report, .pdf p. 10 of 126

Mr. Rumsfeld's changes may have caused a lot of policy confusion, but there doesn't seem to be much confusion about the fact that his changes don't treat Guantanamo detainees as if they were Prionsers of War with the associated protections of the Conventions.

"In August 2003, MG Geoffrey Miller arrived to conduct an assessment of DoD counter-terrorism interrogation and detention operations in Iraq. ...He brought the Secretary of Defense's April 16, 2003 policy guidelines for Guantanamo with him and gave this policy to CJTF-7 as a possible model for the command-wide policy that he recommended be established. MG Miller noted that it applied to unlawful combatants at Guantanamo and was not directly applicable to Iraq where the Geneva Conventions applied."

----The Schlesinger Report, .pdf p. 11 of 126

The Schlesinger Report

Is there anyone else under the impression that our current policy is to treat "detainees" in accordance with the Conventions as Prisoners of War, or is rob the only one?

P.S. When I wrote that, "You see, I don't see a big difference between how Americans should treat prisoners once they're in custody--uniformed or not--that's my point.", what I was suggesting is that the President's Memo of February 7, 2002 got it absolutely right. ...and if we hadn't turned our backs on that policy, the practices that provoked this thread probably wouldn't have happened.

...You agree, don't you?

|6.25.05 @ 6:59PM|#

"Am I to understand, rob, that you think that the current policy of the Bush Administration is to treat "detainees" at Guantanamo in accordance with the Conventions as Prisoners of War?" -Ken Schultz.

No. I said that the protections of Geneva were extended to the, tho they don't deserve them. Which is the what the Bush Memo states.

"The memo to which you refer is dated February 7, 2002--the Schlesinger Report labeled it as Appendix C. Donald Rumsfeld, on the advice of Antionio Gonzales, subsequently changed policy in regards to the treatment of "detainees", most notably between December 2, 2002 and April 16, 2003." - Ken Schultz

Asked and answered in the previous thread. To quote, well, myself:

"So what? All that means is that the policy from Rumsfeld is intended to be in keeping with Geneva. From looking at those memoes, I'd say yes, they are in keeping with it." - Comment by: rob at June 24, 2005 12:44 AM (http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2005/06/the_senator_wou.shtml#comments)

But I'd add that Geneva allows for all sorts of reciprocity that would allow us to respond the way the iullegal combatants act toward us. Is that what you're hoping for? That we'll go ahead and torture these guys? Nah, didn't think so.

"Mr. Rumsfeld's changes may have caused a lot of policy confusion, but there doesn't seem to be much confusion about the fact that his changes don't treat Guantanamo detainees as if they were Prionsers of War with the associated protections of the Conventions." - Ken Schultz

Actually, I don't really agree that there was much confusion. Conclusions in Schlesinger fail to take into account that 1) the UCMJ trumps any of the memoes and 2) the UCMJ was not affected by Rumsfeld's Memo. Even so, the Rumsfeld Memo is NOT counter to the Bush Memo, so it doesn't matter either way.

"and if we hadn't turned our backs on that policy, the practices that provoked this thread probably wouldn't have happened. ...You agree, don't you?" - Ken Schultz

No. I don't think the Bush Memo was the right answer. The correct answer might have been to break out the torture devices and behead some of these guys on live TV. It might have been to torture these guys mercilessly and then dump them in unmarked graves after we'd squeezed everything out of them that we could.

"Oh, the horror! You're EVIL!" (I can hear the responses now.) But I wouldn't do this if the illegal combatants weren't fighting for a cause that has shown they deserve it. The only answer to barbaric violence is a reciprocal response. That's the POINT of the Geneva Convention.

I think the Bush Memo puts our troops at greater risk because we grant the enemy protections that they do not grant to our forces. Geneva was formed under the understanding that failure by both parties to observe it encourages both parties to ever greater acts of barbarity. In our enemy's case, it may be cultural or it may be desperation, but they continue to move to greater and greater acts of barbaric depravity against our troops and our citizens.

Violating Geneva's law of armed conflict means that the treatment they receive now - no matter if it's being totured to death - is better than they deserve.

"But we're Americans, we're the good guys!" People who screech about how we treat these guys fail to realize what happens to OUR people at the hands of these bastards. The Bush Memo basically puts a higher premium on the lives and "rights" of illegal enemy combatants than it does on the lives of our military personnel and our citizens.

Only time can tell whether protecting out international reputation (which is suffering despite our more than equitable treatment of the detainees) is worth the price of failing to respond to our enemies in like fashion.

|6.25.05 @ 7:01PM|#

Sorry, last sentence should have read:

Only time can tell whether protecting out international reputation (which is suffering despite our more than equitable treatment of the detainees) is worth the price of failing to respond to our enemies in like fashion - as provided for by the Geneva Convention.

raymond|6.26.05 @ 2:53AM|#

Geneva allows for all sorts of reciprocity that would allow us to respond the way the iullegal combatants act toward us.

The correct answer might have been to break out the torture devices and behead some of these guys on live TV. It might have been to torture these guys mercilessly and then dump them in unmarked graves after we'd squeezed everything out of them that we could.

I hesitate to get involved in this particular sub-discussion, since anyone who affirms the above with such assurance - such... certitude - is obviously an expert in the Geneva Conventions. And the fact that he repeats his assertions at least three times makes what he says undisputedly true. (What amazes me is that the guarantor of the Conventions has so far failed miserably to make available to the US those torture devices which the Conventions apparently mandate. Even worse, the guarantor of the Conventions seems not to share rob's understanding of the Conventions.)

But what the heck.

But I wouldn't do this if the illegal combatants weren't fighting for a cause that has shown they deserve it.

I've always found American justification for action in Afghanistan perplexing.

It was a war of aggression. Those held in Guantanamo seem to be accused only of defending their country from attack. Is self-defense "a cause that has shown [detainees] deserve" torture?

Much has been made of the fact that they weren't wearing uniforms (eg, rob, June 25, 2005 02:39 PM).

Afghanistan seems to be off the radar screens of most Americans today. After all, the goal of US military intervention there - the capture of bin Laden and the dismantling of al Qaeda - having been so brilliantly achieved, there is no need for you to bother your pretty little heads about that far-off land. I seem to recall, though, that almost none of the fighters there wear/wore uniforms.

The killing and destruction that are the routine work of a soldier in wartime would be regarded as criminal in any other circumstance. If they are not so regarded in war, it is because it is recognized that the soldier is not acting for himself, but as the agent of a community whose right to use force is accepted by others of its kind. The legal immunity of the combatant is logically derived from the reciprocal rights and obligations of belligerents in war, and may, indeed, go unrecognized when such reciprocity is absent. A soldier's uniform signifies the process by which the right to use force is delegated to him, and also the subordination of his own, personal moral obligations to those of the community he serves. Whether he serves enthusiastically or not, voluntarily or not, is immaterial. He is not acting as an individual and is accordingly not a criminal. This distinction has survived the criminalization of war itself. The Charter of the United Nations outlaws the use of military force for any purpose other than individual and collective self-defense. Yet the soldiers of a state embarked upon illegal aggression retain the rights of legal combatants, provided their own actions conform to the norms and customs of war. ("Illegal Combatants" and the Law of Armed Conflict)

...failing to respond to our enemies in like fashion - as provided for by the Geneva Convention

Please cite the appropriate Convention, chapter-and-verse.

(For the definition of "prisoner of war", I refer you to Convention III, Part I, article 4.)


The only answer to barbaric violence is a reciprocal response.

As you sow, so shall you reap.

|6.26.05 @ 11:21AM|#

For those who say I'm wrong (well-intentioned, but wrong), are you saying that we SHOULD do what I earlier condemned? Torture people to death without even determining their guilt? Hold innocent family members hostage? Ignore international treaties we signed and alienate our own allies? Kiss civil liberties good-bye? Turn the executive branch into an elected dictator? If so, then I have no compunctions about saying this: I hope we fucking lose.

Bear in mind, the war against Nazi Germany (which we were able to win without descending into barbarism) was like fighting a Rottweilerthat could actually have killed us. But fighting Al-Qaeda is like fighting a Chihuahua: it's irritating, and it can give you a painful nip on your ankle if you're not careful, but there's no way a Chihuahua can kill you, just as there's no way Al-Qaeda is strong enough to bring us down. But they don't have to; we're doing just fine on our own.

|6.26.05 @ 11:43AM|#

I suppose I should explain my last post, if for no other than I have a business trip in a couple of days and don't need to find myself on the no-fly list:

For me, "America" wasn't and isn't defined as "the hunk of land between Mexico, Canada and the two biggest parts of the world ocean;" it was defined by an ideal: the land of the free. Liberty and justice for all. The pursuit of happiness (provided nobody else gets hurt). Granted, we never fully lived up to that ideal; there were always citizens who had damned good reason to blow a raspberry when they heard those lines. But we were closer to it than any other country on earth, and for awhile we kept getting closer all the time.

And then we started to lose our way. No, this wasn't W.'s fault; I think maybe it started during the 80's, with the War on the American People disguised as the War on Drugs. Now, instead of making steps forward, it seemed more like we were running in circles. Gain a little freedom here, lose a little freedom there, with no net gains overall.

And now we're just going backwards. Now, America looks set to abandon its ideals altogether and become nothing more than a hunk of land between two countries and two oceans. And I'm not going to get misty-eyed and patriotic about real estate, no matter how many really nice features it may have, and no matter that I was born there. What makes a country good or bad is its people and its laws, not the land on which they are. And we're losing, goddammit. We are LOSING. We're losing everything about this country that made it a worldwide beacon, and turning into a cruel and evil nation. Right now our cruelty is mostly directed outward, but sooner or later it'll bounce back inside and even a yellow-ribbon bumper magnet and the Toby Keith Greatest Hits CD (neither of which I own) won't be enough to protect you from the worst impulses of those in charge.

|6.26.05 @ 1:33PM|#

Jen,
Good couple of posts. I don't know that it is true that the Nazis could indeed have come to our land and defeated us. We have a big country, there are a lot of us and we all have guns. And in the same breath, I don't know that it is impossible for Al-Q to defeat us.

If our government was in effective enough in retaliation, it would indeed have encouraged continuing attacks. Considering the disproportionate amount of damage the attack did to the economy, how much more before Americans began hunting moslems at home? How much more before the promises that hold our society up are not believed anymore?

I think that if we are losing who we are, the war on terror has little to do with it. If the executive branch is overly powered, it is not Bush's doing it is Clintons. It is Bush's bad for not undoing, it is Bush's bad for not being enough of an anti-Clinton/Bush1.

I am mainly with you on what it means to be America. I think that the big one is income tax essentially says that you belong to the goverment. Property tax says that you don't own anything. And compounding the problem is the publics sense of entitlement.

We may be doing stuff wrong, but we still have to win the war.

I was going to start by asking you to give a detailed description of how you were fondled by some hot TSA lady at security. But given that the only people that appear to be posting this sunday is me and some porn spammer (I swear we are not the same person).

So instead of any of that I will just end with this tame line;

Would you like me to send you some yellow ribbon bumber stickers, and a copy of Toby Keiths greates hits? He has this great song about a 'boot in the ass'.

|6.26.05 @ 3:03PM|#

Porn spam, Kwais? The editors must be doing a good job of deleting posts today, for I've seen none of that. And I have not yet met the TSA; I'm flying out of New York on Wednesday, and when I packed for my trip I not only had the normal traveler's concern of packing my bags light enough for me to carry, but also had to worry about a bunch of stupid pippy-poo bullshit: buy shoes without laces, since I'll have to take them off. No metal things like nail clippers or cuticle scissors, since I might be able to use them to break into the cockpit and kill the pilot and fly into a nuclear plant and irradiate the whole country. Yeah, right.

I don't agree with you that we MUST win this war; a "War on Terrorism" is actually a "War on Everybody who Dislikes Us," and we're making more of those than we kill. I think we can have a good life WITHOUT rearranging the entire planetary geopolitical system so that everything and everyone is maximized to our benefit. Y'know, in my list of rhetorical questions about what kind of country we want to be, I forgot to add, "Do we want to be the kind of country that invades others and then insists that nobody has any right to resist our invasion, so if you fight us you give up your human rights?"

You're a Christian, aren't you, Kwais? Has it ever occurred to you that you're sounding like a stout-hearted patriotic Roman explaining why that evil traitor Jesus of Nazareth deserves to be tortured to death by the military authorities? Except that in THAT scenario, you can at least take heart in the belief that having our government torture innocents to death was part of God's grand plan to redeem humanity. Even if I were a believer rather than an atheist, I doubt I'd feel that way about what we're doing now, and if this sort of thing is going to be SOP for The Cause then I say Fuck The Cause, for it is neither just nor necessary nor worth defending in the least. We're not fighting to make "the turrists" leave us alone; we're fighting so we can do whatever the hell we want wherever the hell we want to in the world, and nobody's allowed to fight back.

|6.26.05 @ 3:32PM|#

"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

----Third Geneva Convention

Did anyone else read my statements as "BS" or "false"?

|6.26.05 @ 3:37PM|#

Jen,

I am not a Christian

I am against imprisoning or torturing innocents as you are.

Although I have met many amicable TSA agents, I am against the existance of the agency. And I think those rules are stupid. I am a big 2nd Ammendment guy, I think that is the best solution to terrorism on our soil.

I think we must be willing to defend ourselves or we will inevitably fall to others. "those who would beat their swords into plows will plow for those that don't". And in the course of defending ourselves we may indeed end up invading another country as we have done now.

We are not invading France, so obviously we aren't fighting everybody who doesn't like us. Just those who try to do us ill.

|6.26.05 @ 3:46PM|#

Jennifer: For my part, you offered a good illustration of how this terror deal is yet to be resolved, or even a path to resolution discovered. Our Constitution remains the coolest way anybody has, to date, formed a nation (if only modern people would follow its limits). Team Terror primarily wants us to stay out of their affairs, so they can be cruel dictators on their own turf. But we don't like to see FGM going on, our citizens have various commercial and charitable interests around the world, and Team Terror seems to see anything we do as meddling. TT can't match us in combat (can't even really satisfy their own survival needs), so they try to get us to leave them alone by occassionally poking us in the eye. That pisses off many of us, who would like to continue helping (and exploiting, sometimes) people starving under cruel leaders.

Our team got mad enough to poke back, and are trying to use as much power as they can grab to change Team Terror's ways. That power grab is a compromise of our Constitutional principles, which creates an internal backlash among our fan base, leading to calls for our team to play by the old rules which weren't working, or to quit the field. All of these scenarios benefit Team Terror.

I still see no solution, or at least no fast one. I would rather give people like kwais all the required tools and powers to remove the "bad hajjis" from this life than to let them continue killing us individually while feeding a rot that destroys us as a group. Where I draw the line, until I see a better way, is to give USA citizens the magnificent protections of the Constitution and let the non-citizens beg for mercy.

I wonder if the anti-war thinkers are giving sufficient weight to external war-like conditions, as compared to our internal political conditions. It is as if USA is an elephant beset by fleas, and some see only the damage to our skin and not the fleas which are causing our reaction to scratch at them. Perhaps a hope is that our Cause is ultimately flexible and productive, and will be able to survive the infestation and repair any self-inflicted damage that arose.

|6.26.05 @ 3:48PM|#

Not a Christian, Kwais? Hummm, the administration's not the only one to operate with bad intelligence from time to time. But nobody died because of me, so I don't feel too bad. And I think you get the point anyway. In the name of all these high-falutin' ideals we are doing some seriously sleazy things, and according to all the apologists for these things we HAVE to do them, for we can't meet our goals without it. In which case I say to hell with those goals. Let's find a way to co-exist with the others on this planet without becoming evil.

I agree that we can't ever dismantle our military or make it so weak that we couldn't fight off an invasion; that doesn't mean we have to use the military for non-emergency situations, or convert the military into a force that is not only cold-blooded and callous on the battlefield (where it might, regrettably, be necessary) but off the field as well. And re-defining 'battlefield' to mean "anyplace anything ever happens that we don't like," is just as bad. Maybe worse.

Sooner or later there will be another attack on our own soil. (And just my luck, for the first time in my life I spend a lot of time in major cities and on big, full-fueled flights. My life continues to be a symphony of bad timing.) Now, when this attack happens our government will respond in one of three ways:

A. maintenance of the current status quo
B. the granting of even more freedoms to citizens and more respect for non-Americans; or,
C. the taking away of even more civil liberties, and more vile treatment of those dubbed sufficiently non-American.

And is there anybody here who thinks the result will be anything other than "C"?

|6.26.05 @ 4:05PM|#

Let's find a way to co-exist with the others on this planet without becoming evil.

Any suggestions?

Until there's a workable strategy developed, it seems we must dance with the devil. Again with the hope: What is now is not forever.

|6.26.05 @ 4:12PM|#

Ken- to return to your question of what's the up side of non-POW status. The answer is in the Gonzales memo. Section 2441 would possibly apply to administration officials if they gave Geneva protections to detainees and played slappy face.

Your link at 3:32 p.m. only applies to POW's. The administration would argue that it doesn't apply to AQ or the Taliban. However, Protocol I- Art 75 and Protocol II- Art 5 of the Geneva Conventions would possibly apply, but they weren't ratified by the U.S., thereby nullifying 2441, even if a court somehow decided that we should follow the intent of the Protocols.

On the other hand, there was another option, military commissions, which the service JAG's pushed for. This would take care of thoreau's due process concerns, but the JAG's were overruled. I suspect the admin. wanted to operate with the gloves off, but the memos warned of the effect on discipline in the military. Which leaves us at the present situation.

|6.26.05 @ 4:14PM|#

I still have big problems with the idea that Constitutional protections only apply to citizens. The Constitution limits what the government can do, and as long as we're talking about the actions of the U.S. Government, I don't think it matters whether we're talking about citizens or non-citizens.

...We have treaties that govern the way we treat prisoners, and, I reiterate, if we had treated all of these "detainees" in accordance with the Conventions as Prisoners of War, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion now. The only thing, to my mind, that can justify the way we've treated these "detainees" is the quality of the intelligence we've gleaned via interrogation. I look forward to the day that this is all academic, when we can point to the actual intelligence and argue about whether it was all worth it...

...But, in spite of the documented evidence I've seen suggesting that our interrogation methods have produced some intelligence (mostly of the after the fact 9/11 variety), I remain skeptical of the efficacy of our interrogation methods (or torture if you prefer). ...and even if we do, someday, find that our interrogations averted something big, I'm concerned that the damage done to our national character may make it a net loss anyway.

|6.26.05 @ 4:23PM|#

Ken: I see the Con as a contract between the citizens. Non-citizens are not parties to the contract so USA is not bound to follow it on their behalf. To give full protection to everyone might plausibly be part of the contract, and would be nifty, but seems impractical, as there's no higher power to arbitrate and enforce the ideal.

|6.26.05 @ 4:32PM|#

I'm with you again Happy Jack.

...I noted that there were distinctions between Prisoners of War and "detainees" as early as my comment of June 24, 2005 09:35 PM. I've also stated that, I suspect, we would have been better off if we had ignored those distinctions and treated the "detainees" as POWs with all the associated protections of Geneva. It seemed to be suggested, apparently, that this is already the way we are treating the "detainees" at Guantanamo, for some reason. ...and that my suggestion that Bush Administration policy still made the distinction was "BS" and "false" somehow.

...I suspect he may have confused Geneva for "detainees" with Geneva for POWs, but I think I used "POWs" from the very beginning. ...So I don't know.

I confess to being unfamiliar with the military commissions/JAG option, but it sounds like a missed opportunity.

|6.26.05 @ 4:50PM|#

Dyanmist,

That's a lengthy discussion, and one I'd like to have. ...but I've gotta do a road trip. ...I do have a point or two.

I don't think the distinction between citizens and non-citizens has been borne out by the courts, and, without looking it up, I don't recall seeing anything to suggest a distinction between, say, rights of citizens to a trial and the rights of non-citizens to a trial.

How does you argument account for the enfranchisement of resident non-citizens? On what legal basis did the un-propertied among us become full citizens? Did they have rights before they became citizens? Did enslaved African-Americans possess rights before they were free?

...Are you distinguishing between property rights and civil rights for such people? ...If so, on what basis?

|6.26.05 @ 4:52PM|#

Ken - They don't have POW status, and I don't believe I ever said they did. But they are extended the protections of Geneva, regardless.

Hmmm... Looks like I don't even have to argue the point Ken brought up - other people are doing it better than I would. So, BS is STILL BS.

I apologize for poorly stating my position regarding what is allowable under Geneva. Geneva was written to AVOID reciprocity, where both sides continue to get moer and more barbaric.

I still don't think torture is a good idea. But what has been done at Gitmo and AG doesn't constitute torture ... with the exception of those who have violated policy in the past and been convicted for it under UCMJ and those who will undoubtedly be tried in the future for similar illegal actions.

|6.26.05 @ 5:48PM|#

Ken: I like the language "We, the people". Most of the protections are given to "the people", which seems to be those who were party to the contract.

Art IV, Sec 2-- "The Citizens...shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities..."

Then the word changes-- "A Person charged...", which is plausibly any person, not just citizens.

In the Bill of Rights-- "right of people to peaceably assemble, people to keep and bear arms, people to be secure," all of which I read as citizens (the people who made the contract).

Interestingly to this thread, Amendment V starts out with, "No person shall be held... {except in time of public danger}". I take that to mean that even non-citizens are not to be held in peacetime. And the IIXth says cruelty is not permitted without any distinction between person or citizen. However, what was common in 1787 is probably worse than cruel by today's sensiblity.

As the contract was drawn, people were first citizens of a State, which then sent representatives to the USA. The States could set their own terms for selecting reps, and it took amendments to keep them from using race, gender, or capitation to restrict the franchise.

I'm not making a coherent argument, just tossing out some thoughts. Finally, what the courts have decided is not always in alignment with the words in the Con, nor the intent of the signers during the late 18th century.

Happy Motoring!

|6.26.05 @ 7:16PM|#

rob- you're partially correct. Bush granted the Taliban POW status, but not al-Qaeda.

As for following the GC, the p.r. states that the GC applies to the Taliban, but al-Qaeda is allowed treatment " consistent with the principles." I know they're not following Protocol I, but as previously stated, we didn't ratify, so maybe they don't consider it part of the GC. I could quibble with some other sections also, but consistent doesn't necessarily mean a word for word implementation of the document.

Oh, and Ari isn't quite correct about the Taliban and POW status. He forgot the previous paragraph in that section of the GC.

|6.27.05 @ 12:08AM|#

"I hesitate to get involved in this particular sub-discussion, since anyone who affirms the above with such assurance - such... certitude - is obviously an expert in the Geneva Conventions." - raymond

Might = assurance and certitude to you? We have different definitions of that word, apparently. My point, as I suspect you realize (tho I was rushed and probably didn't make myself as clear as I now wish I had) is that those answers you believe I think are "right" are answers I mentioned because we took the higher ground instead of those answers. That's vitally important, because altho they "might have been right" answers technically/legally, they were morally wrong, and definitely VBIs (Very Bad Ideas).

Here's a good (BRIEF) explanation of my position on this thing, that contains a reference to a good John Yoo article on this topic: "there are actions which violate morality, even though the actions are perfectly legal. ... historical example: the Mongols killing single person in cities that refused to surrender. This was perfectly legal, because the Mongols had not signed the Geneva Conventions, which did not yet exist. But that doesn't make it right." - http://www.rasmusen.org/w/04.05.27a.htm

"What amazes me is that the guarantor of the Conventions has so far failed miserably to make available to the US those torture devices which the Conventions apparently mandate. Even worse, the guarantor of the Conventions seems not to share rob's understanding of the Conventions." - raymond

Ok, sure. The Geneva Convention doesn't say "torture them if they violate the rules we've laid out!" But it does say that acting as an illegal combatant negates a claim to GC protections they should expect as legal combatants taken as POWs. What does the GC protect POWs from? Lots of things, including things like torture. I certainly didn't mean to say there was an Article that encouraged torture of noncombatants. Why would there be? The point of Geneva is to DISCOURAGE barbaric reciprocity and ENCOURAGE reciprocal protections of legal combatants and noncombatants.

"It was a war of aggression. Those held in Guantanamo seem to be accused only of defending their country from attack. Is self-defense "a cause that has shown [detainees] deserve" torture?" - raymond

I don't think that's what I said. If that's how it came across, sorry. (Note to self: don't post if you don't really have the time to say it clearly). But Happy Jack answered that better than I probably would have by delineating who gets what status and why.

I think we agree here: "During an armed conflict, only 'combatants' are permitted to 'take a direct part in hostilities.' Noncombatants who do so commit a war crime and lose any protected status that they might have - that is, they are not entitled to be treated as prisoners of war, and any attacks on people or property may be prosecuted as common crime." - http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/combatant-status.html

(BTW,That web-site is great, thanks raymond!)

Unsurprisingly, the other John Yoo link is an even better definition than I could offer, and this just in the abstract for his paper "The Status of Terrorists":

"We argue that the United States is currently engaged in a state of armed conflict with al Qaeda, a multinational terrorist organization whose leadership declared war on the United States as early as 1996, and the Taliban militia, which harbors and supports that organization. This state of armed conflict justifies the use of military force by the United States to subdue and defeat the enemy, separate and apart from any ordinary law enforcement objectives that may also justify coercive government action against members of al Qaeda and the Taliban militia. To give legal recognition to the current armed conflict is not to confer upon members of al Qaeda or the Taliban militia the privileged status of lawful combatants. Neither group complies with the four traditional conditions of lawful combat long established under the laws of war and recognized by the Geneva Conventions. Members of al Qaeda and the Taliban militia have chosen to fight in blatant disregard for the laws of armed conflict and are, accordingly, unlawful combatants not entitled to the legal status of prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions." - http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=438123

"As you sow, so shall you reap." - raymond

You wouldn't suddenly be advocating reciprocity by our enemies should we fail to live up to our end of Geneva there, would you? (Sorry, just kidding!) Seriously, my point was that reciprocity is brilliantly leveraged by the GC in hopes of ensuring humane treatment of noncombatants and legal combatants. Essentially it boils down to "treat our people and military fairly, we'll do the same for your folks."

Military necessity is a valid argument for doing the things I mentioned earlier "might be right answers" - but the US military follows rules that are counter-survival/counter-victory individually because its supposed to be better for everyone, our guys and the guys we're fighting.

Hmmm... I'm probably making myself about as clear as mud... But hopefully you see what I'm saying.

|6.27.05 @ 7:29AM|#

Here's another interesting bit from the Crimes of War site regarding "Misconception 3: The Non-Reciprocal Nature of IHL [International Humanitarian Law] Demands Protection for Even Those Entities That Insist on Violating it."
(http://www.crimesofwar.org/expert/genevaConventions/gc-ratner.html)

"...non-reciprocity is not and should not be all-encompassing. First, current IHL does not preclude reprisals during combat against combatants that might violate IHL. Second, even the bans on reprisals in Protocol I have their detractors, such as the United Kingdom, which issued a reservation to that treaty allowing for the possibility of measured reprisals against civilians if the opposing party itself engaged in serious, deliberate attacks on civilians. Lastly, the granting of protections in Protocol I was, in fact, part of a reciprocal bargain, not simply extending protections to guerrilla groups as a gesture of goodwill, but creating obligations for those movements as well. Thus Protocol I denies combatant status to guerrilla groups that do not follow certain requirements regarding open carrying of arms."

It goes on to point out that terrorist groups (like al Qaeda, I think we can all agree) are a good reason to react in a reciprocal manner:

"The nature of terrorist organizations - whose modus operandi typically includes targeting of civilians (although it is not limited to that) - pushes the need for non-reciprocity even further. One side is determined from the outset to carry out a struggle regardless of even the most fundamental principles of humanity. If these acts are not simply an aberration but its principal way of operation, why should its members be afforded anything more than treatment consistent with those basic notions of humanity? (Some will suggest that they do not even deserve that treatment, of course.)

Best line: "States will not and should not tolerate a legal regime whereby only one set of combatants benefits from the protections of IHL."

This solution is not a recipe for a free-for-all in the war against terrorism. As noted, basic principles of humanity still apply and are accepted by governments. They would mean, for example, that terrorists cannot be tortured upon capture and that their families cannot be targeted. But to suggest that the IHL's non-reciprocal approach to protections requires granting them a vast array of other protections, such as the combatant's privilege (against prosecution) or POW status, is unwarranted. "

But here's the kicker: "The nature of terrorist organizations - whose modus operandi typically includes targeting of civilians (although it is not limited to that) - pushes the need for non-reciprocity even further. One side is determined from the outset to carry out a struggle regardless of even the most fundamental principles of humanity. If these acts are not simply an aberration but its principal way of operation, why should its members be afforded anything more than treatment consistent with those basic notions of humanity? (Some will suggest that they do not even deserve that treatment, of course.) States will not and should not tolerate a legal regime whereby only one set of combatants benefits from the protections of IHL."

Then it goes on to point out why this isn't a recipe for scrapping the GC and IHL when dealing with terrorism:

"This solution is not a recipe for a free-for-all in the war against terrorism. As noted, basic principles of humanity still apply and are accepted by governments. They would mean, for example, that terrorists cannot be tortured upon capture and that their families cannot be targeted. But to suggest that the IHL's non-reciprocal approach to protections requires granting them a vast array of other protections, such as the combatant's privilege (against prosecution) or POW status, is unwarranted."

Wow. You'd think they'd sat down and written scholarly papers on the subject, rather than posting slap-dash comments on HNR, liker your truly... (It's always a good thing to find someone who makes your arguments better than you do! Thanks again for pointing out that web-site raymond!)

It asks the question that I think underlies all of this: "The U.S. squares the circle by relying on the notion of the "illegal combatant," something that IHL already accepts in terms of spies, mercenaries, and guerrillas who do not meet the special requirements of carrying arms openly. This allows a state to kill them but afford them no protections. But is there no limit to how and where someone becomes such an illegal combatant?"

and "Where does one draw the line between Al Qaeda attacks and those of the mafia or simply an insane person? For the combatant's privilege to remain, as it should, a hallmark of international humanitarian law, it must be confined to a highly limited set of circumstances. States will not and should not agree to extend it to any individual or group that chooses to attack a military target."

I suspect from previous posts, that there are plenty of people who will disagree with the conclusion, but it makes sense to me. (First entence included for contextual clarity): "Clearly, states do need to figure out some limits to armed conflict as a geographic and temporal matter, and academic and governmental discussion of such issues can help elaborate whether the existing norms work or need some further elaboration.) But beyond that, as long as those fighting terrorism respect the basic principles of humanity in that struggle, international humanitarian law ought to live with something close to the status quo."

raymond|6.27.05 @ 12:50PM|#

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush, whose administration has been hit by accusations of prisoner abuse, said on Sunday that the United States was committed to the elimination of torture worldwide.

What are they going to do? Redefine it out of existence?

Bunch of hypocrites.

|6.27.05 @ 4:34PM|#

I want to know why you've gone this long without addressing a single event the involves the Senate Majority Leader with the headline "Frist, Do No Harm!"

gaius marius|6.27.05 @ 4:55PM|#

Evil Nazi Torture�.

fwiw, here is the real problem -- the mythologizing of the nazis and the communists. we've so distorted and abstracted gulags/death camps that we have ceased to understand that they were seen at the time as reasonable responses to immediate problems by the people involved. they felt about them exactly as we do now -- some small proportion horrified, the rest either wildly endorsing or ambivalent.

i would heartily encourage us all to consider that as we break and ignore treaties, foster revolution in distant lands, engage in first-strike warfare and create false pretenses for invasions. this is all behavior engaged in by the totalitarian states we have mythologized, and the degree of difference is not nearly as great between them and us as it seems to us who have elevated their evils out of all proportion to the reality of what they did and how it was seen at the time.

gaius marius|6.27.05 @ 5:02PM|#

In the name of all these high-falutin' ideals we are doing some seriously sleazy things, and according to all the apologists for these things we HAVE to do them, for we can't meet our goals without it. In which case I say to hell with those goals. Let's find a way to co-exist with the others on this planet without becoming evil.

amen, ms jennifer. it's the difference between a pragmatic epicurean and a noble idealist.

the pragmatist understands that awful means are awful -- and if he immerses himself in evil, he is no longer good.

the noble idealist can disassociate himself from the reality of evil means by idealizing the end -- and it allows him to rationalize murder, rape, and destruction as good.

it's the difference between being one to whom morality means good acts and one to whom morality means merely good intentions. our leadership is obviously in the latter camp.

|6.27.05 @ 6:01PM|#

gaius: So, what's your answer? How do we meet evil without it destroying us, or us destroying ourselves?

The ideal construction of a nation or society is usually separate or distinct from the world situation. Bush probably hates that he has to act against the teaching of his beloved Christ, but what else can he do?

|6.27.05 @ 6:17PM|#

Dynamist -

Hey, there's always the nuclear option... We pull our military back to our borders and proclaim that we will 1) first-strike nuke anyone we deem to be an imminent threat and 2) nuke any country that attacks us or harbors terrorists who attack us.

That will surely cut down on the number of people we have to imprison, and therefore might meet the goal of some folks.

Of course, once we've nuked the rest of the world and taken hits from a bunch of Russian nukes ourselves, I think it's fair to say that this policy will be deemed to have been... unwise.

Absent that, well, I suspect we'll have to do something kinda like what we're doing right now.

gaius marius|6.28.05 @ 10:26AM|#

there's always the nuclear option...

there's the answer, mr dynamist, provided by the continuing deterioration of civility. mr rob does nothing so well as represent the unhinged barbarian that is coming to dominate western politics.

Bush probably hates that he has to act against the teaching of his beloved Christ

i doubt it, mr dynamist, and i'll tell you why. christianity as it exists to his ilk isn't christian at all -- the beatitudes are a reward dispensed for complicity to him, not a means of self-enlightenment. he is a neitzschean wearing a very thin christian cloak -- and that applies to virtually all western christians now, imo. people of his 'faith' sincerely believe christianity has something to do with heroically manufacturing personal earthly emancipation. that shows you what a shell of reductive mongrelization postmodern christian belief has become without the guidance of a central ecclesiastic and philosophical authority; no wonder it is so easily invoked and abused.

i think an answer, mr dynamist, could have been found in our christian ethical roots -- tolerance, acceptance, responsibility. there is no evil emanating from the east, and we are receiving nothing which we ourselves did not ask to be rained upon us. the islamists are responding to a challenge to their civilization which we have forced upon them; it is their culture which is in danger of usurpation and destruction, not ours. when we were confronted with like challenge -- in the eighth century, say, when the saracens occupied italy and marched on tours against charles martel, and the norman vikings sailed up the seine to paris -- our nascent civilization responded by organizing chivalric feudalism out of the chaos of the dark ages, and wielded it against both for centuries thereafter. can one expect them to do less? i think not.

abandoning our militarism will not yield a subservient westernized east, which seems to be the pathetic goal of the global democratic revolution. but do we really need the east to be so? and it would spare us the bankruptcy, degeneracy and collapse that has befallen all militaristic societies of history -- we can save ourselves from this fate.

cicero noted the ire of the provinces and was not angered but ashamed, knowing as he did that the misrule and perverted abuse of egocentric and war-mad roman leadership had wrought it. he implored his society to rule justly and make amends -- but was ignored. those same provinces and their proletariats did much to undo rome.

even that may not get at the source of the problem -- there is a fundamental lack of creativity and attraction in western civilization, which in former centuries made the west admired and imitated. putting the spark of charisma back into the west may be too tall a task -- not every problem has a solution, after all, and the west, in destroying the old for the new, has largely given up contemplation and reflection that might restore it for action and technique. but it would nonetheless be a step away from the brink.

|6.29.05 @ 9:41AM|#

Gaius - You realize that I was being sarcastic about the "nuclear option" right? That I'm saying that isolation and falling back on nukes for our nat'l security is as sure a path to destruction as failing to fight when we're attacked?

Or are you ALSO being sarcastic when you champion a position that turns it back on the human instinct to protect one's self, one's family, and one's fellow countrymen?

"there is no evil emanating from the east, and we are receiving nothing which we ourselves did not ask to be rained upon us." -GM

Are you seriously suggesting that a culture based on a barbaricallyintolerant ideology that hasn't evolved since before the Enlightenment is suddenly going to stop wanting to "destroy the infidel?" Do you honestly believe that if the U.S. simply accedes to all of the demands of al Qaeda and the Taliban, that it wouldn't eventually be required to become a province under the Caliphate to also ensure world peace remains unsullied? Do you actually believe that this would lead to world peace?

Ok, it might, but it would also mean destroying the values this nation was founded on and everyone in it converting to a specific brand of a specific religion. That's not a peace I'm willing to accede to.

BTW, I'd also argue that the West hasn't lost charisma that makes it "admired and imitated." Most foreign countries I go to (whether current or former allies or even those whose gov't is opposed to the U.S.) include a sizable number of the billions of people worldwide who long to immigrate to the US and Europe and who consume our culture hungrily.

|6.29.05 @ 12:30PM|#

Gaius - "there is no evil emanating from the east"? I beg to differ. The radical, car-bombing, suicide-bombing, aircraft hi-jacking, noncombatant civilian attacking, civilian non-governmental-organization worker beheading, armed groups of murderers who claim to do this because their religion demands it act in a manner I can only classify as evil.

There's a lot of strange philosophy embedded in gaius marius's historical comparisons and analogies. He compares the U.S. to those who invaded, when it was Saddam Hussein's forces that invaded Kuwait and made Saudi Arabia so fearful of its neighbor that the infidels were called in as allies to repulse him. He compares the invading Saracens to the U.S., who attacked Afghanistan and Iraq in retaliation for attacks against our people and failure to obey peace treaties and who continued to fire on our forces for YEARS while they were engaged in maintaining the no-fly zone intended to keep Saddam from further eradicating the people inside his proclaimed borders.

There's a lot of strange rhetoric about good intentioned idealists vs. pragmatic realists. I would say that the labels are mix-and-matched.

I'd argue that someone who responds to overt attack pacifistically, decrying military action as catastrophically misguided militarism, is acting out of misguided and unrealistic idealism.

I would say that it is someone with a pragmatic world-view who realizes that there are, sadly, times when you must make the most difficult of pragmatic decisions - whether it is worse to stand and fight the bloodiest of battles or face an even worse fate by refusing to do so.