Tortured Defense
"We do not torture"
President George W Bush on November 7, 2005.
"President Bush supported an effort....to block or modify a Senate-passed ban on torture."
Associated Press, same day (1)
In the film The Naked Gun Lieutenant Frank Dribbin is in a gun-battle with a desperate criminal on a crowded sidewalk. Suddenly the hoodlum grabs a woman from the crowd and uses her as shield as he shoots at the officer.
"Two can play at that game!" Dribbin declares, as he clutches another woman, hides behind her, and continues the shoot-out.
The United States, acting once more as the "Policeman of the World", is in a titanic struggle with the forces of militant Islam in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Our enemies have no scruples about how they treat those they capture. Should we emulate Lt. Dribbin and abandon all moral limitations on how our forces treat captives?
When asked about reports of abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib Prison, Guantanamo, and other detention facilities, the Bush Administration and Pentagon have at various times replied:
1. The "detainees" were never really soldiers, so they are not really prisoners of war (POWs) and we have the right to do whatever we want to them. (2)
2. To get vital information from terrorists, you have to use abusive interrogation methods.
3. Even so, Americans never abused anyone.
4. OK, a few dozen prisoners at Abu Ghraib were abused, but the deranged enlisted woman who did it was acting alone, and she has been court-martialed.
It is truly remarkable that American intelligence officers, people capable of detecting enemy intentions and activities, were unaware of prisoner-abuse going on under their noses at a prison at which they worked. Officers were shocked (shocked! flabbergasted!) when they learned of the abuse from photos on TV news.
Subsequent investigations have revealed that abusive interrogation techniques (including physical torture, sexual humiliation, and use of vicious dogs) were actually used at many different facilities with the full knowledge and support of intelligence and command officers, under general policies approved by CIA and Defense Department officials. Recent reports show that secret CIA prisons have also been operating in Europe. It is plausible that the most brutal prison on the Communist-ruled island of Cuba is the one run the USA.
In addition, our government has also extradited some prisoners to countries such as Egypt and Syria (3), which are notorious for use of torture as an interrogation method.
Senator John McCain (R, Arizona), a former POW in Vietnam, introduced the bill passed by the Senate that would ban torture of prisoners by US forces. If this country is serious about human rights around the world, this bill should be passed by the House of Representatives and signed into law. Commanders should thenbe told clearly that they will be held personally responsible for violations by troops under them, and that ignorance of what is going on will not be accepted as an excuse.
The Bush Administration asserts the right to hold "enemy combatants" and "suspected terrorists" indefinitely without charges or trial. Some of these people have hired lawyers to challenge their detentions in the federal courts. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal of Guantanamo detainee Salim Hamdan, who is facing trial before a military war-crimes commission.
It is time for our government to make a firm distinction between men captured with weapons on a battlefied (such as in Fallujah , Iraq) and people seized in their homes, on the streets, and in airports on suspicion of terrorism.
The former should be treated as POWs, whether or not they are dressed in uniforms and carry military IDs. We must recognize that in today's wars the enemy is often an irregular, part-time, soldier. Normally POWs are exchanged or released after the end of a war and return home. Since the current War Against Terrorism seems to have no specific enemy, it is hard to see when or how it can really end. Then when, if ever, will these POWs ever be released?
People who are taken prisoner as terror suspects (not under battle conditions) should only be held until the military or Justice Department has had a reasonable chance to investigate the evidence against them. Six months should be enough time for filing of charges, perhaps a year in extraordinarily serious and complex cases. Some detainees have been held for nearly four years without charge.
Why, you may ask, should our government be concerned with the human rights of people who have been fighting against us, especially when our enemies have no regard at all for our human rights or those of other innocent people? Don't the "detainees" deserve severe punishment?
First, the image of America in the world is deeply affected by how we treat our prisoners. We must act as though our acts will become public knowledge, and spread across the world at the speed of light. If America tortures people, even bad people, it cannot be trusted to promote democracy or human rights.
Even more important, though, is our own morality, which should not be inspired by the immorality of our enemies. This is not the first time that we have fought against those who abuse or even kill captives (4); we did not avenge ourselves on enemy POWs then, and there is no greater need or justification to do so now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Quoted in Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel, Nov. 8, 2005, p. 3A.
(2) International agreements on treatment of prisoners of war apply to soldiers wearing identifiable military uniforms, under government command, and using flags or other recognizable insignia.
(3) Despite Syria's dispicable record of supporting terrorism, and the evidence that Syria was behind the assassination of Lebanese politician Rafik Harriri, the US continues to seek Syrian help in sealing the western border of Iraq.
(4) During World War II German forces massacred US POWs at Malmedy, Belgium, and the Japanese killed thousands of Americans in the Bataan Death March in the Phillipines.
President George W Bush on November 7, 2005.
"President Bush supported an effort....to block or modify a Senate-passed ban on torture."
Associated Press, same day (1)
In the film The Naked Gun Lieutenant Frank Dribbin is in a gun-battle with a desperate criminal on a crowded sidewalk. Suddenly the hoodlum grabs a woman from the crowd and uses her as shield as he shoots at the officer.
"Two can play at that game!" Dribbin declares, as he clutches another woman, hides behind her, and continues the shoot-out.
The United States, acting once more as the "Policeman of the World", is in a titanic struggle with the forces of militant Islam in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Our enemies have no scruples about how they treat those they capture. Should we emulate Lt. Dribbin and abandon all moral limitations on how our forces treat captives?
When asked about reports of abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib Prison, Guantanamo, and other detention facilities, the Bush Administration and Pentagon have at various times replied:
1. The "detainees" were never really soldiers, so they are not really prisoners of war (POWs) and we have the right to do whatever we want to them. (2)
2. To get vital information from terrorists, you have to use abusive interrogation methods.
3. Even so, Americans never abused anyone.
4. OK, a few dozen prisoners at Abu Ghraib were abused, but the deranged enlisted woman who did it was acting alone, and she has been court-martialed.
It is truly remarkable that American intelligence officers, people capable of detecting enemy intentions and activities, were unaware of prisoner-abuse going on under their noses at a prison at which they worked. Officers were shocked (shocked! flabbergasted!) when they learned of the abuse from photos on TV news.
Subsequent investigations have revealed that abusive interrogation techniques (including physical torture, sexual humiliation, and use of vicious dogs) were actually used at many different facilities with the full knowledge and support of intelligence and command officers, under general policies approved by CIA and Defense Department officials. Recent reports show that secret CIA prisons have also been operating in Europe. It is plausible that the most brutal prison on the Communist-ruled island of Cuba is the one run the USA.
In addition, our government has also extradited some prisoners to countries such as Egypt and Syria (3), which are notorious for use of torture as an interrogation method.
Senator John McCain (R, Arizona), a former POW in Vietnam, introduced the bill passed by the Senate that would ban torture of prisoners by US forces. If this country is serious about human rights around the world, this bill should be passed by the House of Representatives and signed into law. Commanders should thenbe told clearly that they will be held personally responsible for violations by troops under them, and that ignorance of what is going on will not be accepted as an excuse.
The Bush Administration asserts the right to hold "enemy combatants" and "suspected terrorists" indefinitely without charges or trial. Some of these people have hired lawyers to challenge their detentions in the federal courts. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal of Guantanamo detainee Salim Hamdan, who is facing trial before a military war-crimes commission.
It is time for our government to make a firm distinction between men captured with weapons on a battlefied (such as in Fallujah , Iraq) and people seized in their homes, on the streets, and in airports on suspicion of terrorism.
The former should be treated as POWs, whether or not they are dressed in uniforms and carry military IDs. We must recognize that in today's wars the enemy is often an irregular, part-time, soldier. Normally POWs are exchanged or released after the end of a war and return home. Since the current War Against Terrorism seems to have no specific enemy, it is hard to see when or how it can really end. Then when, if ever, will these POWs ever be released?
People who are taken prisoner as terror suspects (not under battle conditions) should only be held until the military or Justice Department has had a reasonable chance to investigate the evidence against them. Six months should be enough time for filing of charges, perhaps a year in extraordinarily serious and complex cases. Some detainees have been held for nearly four years without charge.
Why, you may ask, should our government be concerned with the human rights of people who have been fighting against us, especially when our enemies have no regard at all for our human rights or those of other innocent people? Don't the "detainees" deserve severe punishment?
First, the image of America in the world is deeply affected by how we treat our prisoners. We must act as though our acts will become public knowledge, and spread across the world at the speed of light. If America tortures people, even bad people, it cannot be trusted to promote democracy or human rights.
Even more important, though, is our own morality, which should not be inspired by the immorality of our enemies. This is not the first time that we have fought against those who abuse or even kill captives (4); we did not avenge ourselves on enemy POWs then, and there is no greater need or justification to do so now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Quoted in Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel, Nov. 8, 2005, p. 3A.
(2) International agreements on treatment of prisoners of war apply to soldiers wearing identifiable military uniforms, under government command, and using flags or other recognizable insignia.
(3) Despite Syria's dispicable record of supporting terrorism, and the evidence that Syria was behind the assassination of Lebanese politician Rafik Harriri, the US continues to seek Syrian help in sealing the western border of Iraq.
(4) During World War II German forces massacred US POWs at Malmedy, Belgium, and the Japanese killed thousands of Americans in the Bataan Death March in the Phillipines.
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 8:49 AM
0 comments
