The Fallacy of Reciprocity
By streiff Posted in War — Comments (94) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Much time and effort has been expended on the subject of the Geneva Conventions and how they apply to the GWOT. One of the most amusing concepts that has emerged is that of “reciprocity.” This notion being that if we do not scrupulously adhere to the Geneva Conventions then our soldiers, when captured, will not be afforded the protections of the Geneva Conventions. This is followed closely by:
On one side, Mr. Graham and Senators John McCain of Arizona and John Warner of Virginia have argued that the system must provide enough fairness guarantees that the nation would feel comfortable having American troops tried under it.
These arguments are ridiculous on their face.
Read on.
The easiest argument to dispose of is that proffered by McCain and Warner that we must be comfortable having American troops tried under that system.
Fact: the Geneva Conventions prohibit the trial of combatants except for offenses against the laws of the detaining power:
A prisoner of war shall be subject to the laws, regulations and orders in force in the armed forces of the Detaining Power; the Detaining Power shall be justified in taking judicial or disciplinary measures in respect of any offence committed by a prisoner of war against such laws, regulations or orders.
Prisoners of war are not subject to punishment so long as they are legal combatants which means they have carried out their operations in accordance with the Geneva Conventions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
This means the only class of prisoners affected by this theory is those prisoners who have violated the law and customs of war in some manner. They could be common criminals or they could be the victims of a show trial. In the first case I don’t really have much sympathy for them, in the second case their fate is preordained so whatever Potemkin trial they receive is irrelevant. In fact, the more unfair the trial the more obvious that the trial is a propaganda not a judicial proceeding.
So this idea is simply specious in the extreme.
The idea that if we adhere to the conventions others will also is similarly ridiculous.
Since the Geneva Conventions were inaugurated we have had cause to need the Geneva Conventions.
- North Vietnam signed the Geneva Conventions in 1957. They did not adhere to it.
- North Korea signed the Geneva Conventions in 1957. They did not adhere to the Geneva Conventions in regards to the Pueblo affair.
- Iraq signed the Geneva Conventions in 1956. There were numerous cases of abuse of US airmen captured during the Gulf War and Major Rhonda Cornum was raped during her captivity. Private Jessica Lynch was raped during her brief captivity in 2003.
We can say with 100% certainty that our troops have never had the protections of the Geneva Conventions despite our record of adhering to them. It is simply addlepated to look at our potential adversaries and think that they will adhere to the Geneva Conventions.
To the contrary, we should treat the Geneva Conventions in exactly the same manner as we treated chemical weapons: we won’t use them first but if anyone uses them we will also use them. We should begin conflicts with the assumption that the Conventions are in force and we should apply the same standards to our treatment of enemy prisoners as they do to ours. This is not an affront to American tradition. It is American tradition.
While many are familiar with the abysmal conditions at the Confederate prison camps at Andersonville, GA and Libby Prison at Richmond, VA few are familiar with Camp Chase, OH; Elmira, NY; Point Lookout, MD; and Pea Patch Island, DE. In retaliation for the conditions in the Confederacy, the Union Army imposed the same diet and conditions upon Confederate prisoners in reprisal. Henry Wirz was hanged for his role at Andersonville. No Union officer was punished in any form.
Also during the Civil War, General George A. Custer hanged six Confederate cavalrymen under the command of John S. Mosby. Mosby retaliated by hanging seven men he had captured from Custer’s command. Mosby’s men captured after that date were treated as prisoners of war. Mosby’s reprisal had the effect of protecting his own men.
The idea that men of the type who beheaded Nick Berg will treat captives graciously because we are treating our captives graciously simply misunderstands the nature of the men we are fighting. The only protection our soldiers will ever receive is through the certain knowledge on the part of their captors that a quick and ignominious death awaits anyone who abuses an American prisoner of war.
Otto Skorzeny’s commandos participating in Operation GREIF were found to be in violation of the customs and laws of war and were punished accordingly. They were executed two days after a court-martial convicted them. This is how we should have dealt with the men at Guantanamo. They were captured under arms in violation of the laws and customs of war. They should never have left the battlefield. Shame on us for stockpiling these criminals and double shame on us for spending nanoseconds contemplating the protection of their rights.
Hopefully when these men are ultimately released, courtesy of Messrs McCain and Graham, we will have learned a bitter lesson about fighting the uncivilized using civilized means. I am really sure the next time a US soldier is captured by one of these Club Gitmo alumni he will receive treatment according to the Geneva Conventions.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | The Papacy Jihad? — Comments (34) »
The Fallacy of Reciprocity 94 Comments (0 topical, 94 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell got it right when he said "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts." The argument over the treatment of terror detainees is not about what they deserve, it is about what we as Americans stand for.
Our country was created on the belief that all people should be treated equally. The Declaration of Independence says “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Notice that there are no exceptions listed. Don’t we teach our children that The Golden Rule is “do unto others as you would have done unto you”?
We keep hearing that the terrorists hate our freedom, but if we abandon the moral basis on which our freedoms reside, wouldn’t we be accomplishing exactly what they desire?
You can come here and, with a straight face, expound utter nonsense? You really need to write this stuff down and put it in a safe place so you can pull it out and review it the next time one or more of these b*stards kills a few more innocent Americans, your fellow citizens by the way.
Which part of they don't give a fig for our Declaration of Independence or our high moral principles do you not understand? They will kill you and yours at the first opportunity and never bat an eye. Apparently you don't, but I want my wife and kids to live long, safe, happy, peaceful lives and if it means stepping on these bugs to do, so then so be it.
We keep hearing that the terrorists hate our freedom, but if we abandon the moral basis on which our freedoms reside, wouldn’t we be accomplishing exactly what they desire?
I really wish the "moral relativists" would find a new argument because this one has zero actual value. Millions of American men went to war in Europe and the Pacific in 1942-1945. Those men dropped millions on tons of explosives and fire on cities, killed millions of people, burned Japanese soldiers out of caves when they wouldn't surrender; they did and saw things which many of them carry as unspeakable to this day. And when they came home they did not become serial killers and psychopaths, they become bankers and salesmen and factory workers. We did not become a nation of savages because it was necessary for our fathers or grandfathers behaved with what you would now see as savagry.
PS. Powell was a backstabbing fool when he was Secretary of State and he hasn't improved with age.
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
There's an old story about a Jewish kid asking his rabbi how he'll know the Messiah when he comes. The rabbi's answer is "It doesn't matter whether or not you know that he's the Messiah. What matters is whether HE knows you're a Jew". Same situation here - I don't expect the terrorists honor our founding principals, and I don't really care what the "rest of the world" has to say about it. What I care about is what we can control, and that's whether or not WE honor our founding principals.
That having been said, invoking the Golden Rule in this situation is really priceless. If the Golden Rule applied, we would have web videos of terrorists making civilian captives wear underwear on thier heads and playing grabass with each other in "retribution" for Abu Graib. What we got was terrorists sawing heads OFF.
So a few points to consider:
1) While it's true that all men are created equal, what they chose to do after that point is a different story. People who commit criminal acts don't get to pursue any more happiness than what can be found in an 8" x 12" cell.
2) We're not dealing with a kindergarten class, we're dealing with vicious criminals who wish they'd been the ones who flew the planes loaded with fuel and innocent victims into buildings full of more innocent victims. I really don't think that "asking nicely" is going to work.
2) We're dealing with a culture that views as weakness any hesitation to use force in the most ruthless manner possible. "Playing Nice" isn't going to change the way these thugs treat people at thier mercy.
3) We're talking about extracting information that's going to be used prevent cowardly acts of mass murder against civilians. Using any means short of long-term physical injury or disfiguration is NOT unreasonable.
that I do not consider any of the things we have done, or want to do, call our principles into question. As I said, the lessons of WW II can serve one in good stead when evaluating whether a nation and its people's actions in its defense risk it being reduced to the level of its enemies.
I consider the primary founding principle of this nation is life, libery and the pursuit of happiness for our citizens. If we can aid others in achieving that goal, that's wonderful. But that is most assuredly not the primary obligation of the United States government. Unlike the moral relativists and internationalist I do not believe that the Founding Fathers intended our Declaration of Independence or our Constitution to apply to anyone other than Americans. Non-Americans have the option, and obligation, of pursuing their own liberty and justice; we should do what we can to help but they must tackle their own demons.
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
Since you bring up WWII, you might take note that despite the treatment our soldiers received in such places as Bataan and Malmedy, our treatment of Japanese and German prisoners did not descend into a tit-for-tat. I agree that our actions on the battlefield should not be constrained but we’re talking here about people who have already been captured, or did I miss something? Once they are in our custody, we should treat them as we would expect to be treated if the conditions were reversed, regardless of what they may have done or still wish to do.
I’m also curious how you figure this is the position of “moral relativists”. My argument is that our morals should be absolute and not conditioned on the morals, or lack thereof, of our enemy. Isn’t that your side of the argument?
abominable treatment of US prisoners, German and Japanese soldiers were soldiers, proper combatants. The creatures we are talking about at terrorists and/or illegal combatants. The reason they are called "illegal combatants" is that they are, well, illegal; they have no rights because they do not observe the rules of war.
The basic mistake was taken by the administration to begin with. They should simply have dealt with them the way we dealt with spys and illegal combatants in the past, extracted in the information they had then then shot them --- in accordance with the Geneva Convention.
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
The basic mistake was taken by the administration to begin with. They should simply have dealt with them the way we dealt with spys and illegal combatants in the past, extracted in the information they had then then shot them --- in accordance with the Geneva Convention.
But they didn't so the question is what do we do with them now? How we answer this should reflect how we see ourselves, not how we see them.
Don't give us that psychobabble gobblygook
How we answer this should reflect how we see ourselves, not how we see them.
No! It should reflect the fact that these terrorists hate US and anyone who looks like US. They were perfectly willing to kill each and every one of US and if they are ever turned loose again they will gladly re-try to kill every one of US!
Psychobabble that!
DAHMich. Your psychobabble, touchy-feely stuff is how we've gone off track since the "glorious I'm OK, You're OK, non-judgemental 1970s."
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
mistake in the first place.
Touchy feely is great in a psychology class, but touchy feely ignored human nature, especially human nature when it comes to dealing with people whose moral compass is so far out of wack (and please don't tell me the various islamic terrorist groups have a perfectly calibrated moral compass, because I might laugh my way right out of this chair).
You seem to be saying that there is some window of time in which you believe that we may extract information and then shoot them, but that this window has expired and so this option no longer applies.
Is that the case? If so, perhaps you can give the WH some guidance on long that window lasts. But I think you'll have a hard time getting this idea past John Paul Stevens.
Prisoners of war are treated differently in captivity than illegal combatants for the simple reason illegal combatants have information the can prevent additional atrocities whereas prisoners of war have only information in regards to legal military operations.
When you remove an honorable fighter fighting for a side that fights honorably from the battlefield, the only information they have to provide is in regards to the military operations of their unit. For that reason, they are treated as honorable “pawns” in a clash between two uniformed and honorable sides involved in a larger cause, and are not to be interrogated. The Geneva Convention is pretty clear about that. They give you name, rank and serial number and you give them cigarettes, a cantina, a bed and a roof until the conflict is over. Their honorable conduct affords them those privileges.
Illegal combatants however are part of illegal operations that many times are targeting innocents such as civilians, as is the case with the terrorists in this conflict. Unlike honorable and legal military operations, it is critical the illegal acts be prevented if possible. For this reason illegal combatants receive different treatment that allows interrogation since the knowledge gained will prevent further atrocities, not jut provide intelligence into legal military operations.
Your inability or unwillingness to distinguish between the actions of those behaving honorably from those that do not is the flaw in your logic. As you assume all men being created equal means all men are moral equivalents for the duration of their lives you assume all war fighters picked up from on battle field are moral equivalents needing to be treated in an identical manner. To those that fight honorably, that is offensive.
from prisoners of war, for the very purpose of the Geneva Conventions. To force nations not to use terrorist tactics.
That is why spies, saboteurs, and Guerrillas were, when captured, summarily executed.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Does that mean we can throw feces in their faces? I would think that following the prisoners example we have the right to reciprocate.
I can't comment on your overall political positions, not knowing you, but the "morals are absolute", can't sink to their level" argument is standard from the left. What's funny about it, change that to sick, is that it comes from people who always tell us that morals are not absolute, that their are no absolutes. Except when they want an absolute.
Enemy prisoners in WW II, the Japanese who were taken prisoner were the lucky ones. To illustrate, just once, when Merrils Marauders over ran a Japanese camp Americans cut the throats of their wounded, source, Charelton Ogburn, an offficer who witnessed the aftermath.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
In war, the rules are different. That's why we have declarations of war, diplomacy, Geneva Conventions, and the whole machinery. Ever notice that in war, both sides shoot at each other, not knowing anything at all about the man on the other side except that he's on the other side?
Any one of these wartime acts outside of a wartime setting would cause all manner of strife and gnashing of teeth. In war, we just ask how many died, and who won the day.
They are the enemy, and they want to destroy our nation and remake our culture in the image of theirs. You can whine all you wish about stooping to their level, but I don't consider it stooping to defend my civilization, nation, and family.
If I stoop, it will be to get a better shot.
--
The Presidency is a position more easily critiqued than attained.
Terrorists are Unlawful Combatants and may be killed or wounded. If captured, they are treated as War Criminals and do not enjoy the protections of the Geneva Conventions or any civilian legal right or due process.
Si vis Pacem, Para Bellum
why is this so hard for modern Americans to understand?
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
First, the Geneva Conventions have sections specifically dealing with war criminal and unlawful combatants. Second, isn't the purpose of declaring someone a war criminal so they can be tried in court where they would have legal rights and due process?
Do not mean you get U.S. Constitutional rights. It means you get a military tribunal which historically is a different “due process” than a civilian criminal trial.
In some countries, due process means the accused bares the burden of proving their innocence rather than the accuser proving the guilt. I don’t hear anyone out here arguing against due process. Rather, you are arguing there is only one form of due process available, that of U.S. criminal trials under the U.S. Constitution, plus anything that can be piled in from the any part of the Geneva Convention, including the portions never ratified by the Senate for Unlawful Combatants.
The President is willing to allow a defense lawyer with the proper security clearance access to the classified evidence. That's more due process than the Brits offer who keep all of it, period, away from the defense. But I don't hear you are the rest of your troll friends screaming the Brits in "inhumane" or comparable to "Soviet gulags”.
..and duly processed in front of a firing squad.
Entitled via Geneva Convetions to a blindfold, a cigarette, and a mercy shot afterwards.
More mercy than was shown to Danny Pearl or Richard Berg.
--furious
"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader
Our country was created on the belief that all people should be treated equally.
No, it wasn't, and nowhere in the founding documents does it say so.
We keep hearing that the terrorists hate our freedom, but if we abandon the moral basis on which our freedoms reside, wouldn’t we be accomplishing exactly what they desire?
If you kill a man in the name of revenge, have you killed yourself? By which I mean, ended your life processes.
Specious logic appears to be a forte of yours. Wanna offer something interesting?
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
From the Declaration of Independence:
” We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”
From the Fifth Amendment:
” No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
These founding documents appear quite inclusive. Would you like to show us some exceptions to these?
Christians would argue that killing someone in the name of revenge is a sin and would subject your soul to eternal torment in hell. Is that logic specious enough for you?
Non U.S. citizens that commit acts of war against this nation don not have Constitutional rights. Or are you suggesting every Nazi war criminal was entitled to these rights, including Hitler? They did not get them.
I don’t believe in killing these murderers of innocents in the name of “revenge”, I believe in killing them in the name of “justice”.
Please get this ignorant troll and bestower of Constitutional rights upon every non U.S. citizen terrorist roaming the globe of out of here.
that the Founders intended the protections of the Constitution to apply to the citizens of France or any other country other than ours?
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
The Supreme Court said in Hamden they do not have to be tried in the U.S. or a U.S. court. That's why they're being held on the island of Cuba, Gitmo that is. It is why they've never been on U.S. soil and will face a military tribunal, not a U.S. Court.
I'd love to say it was fun while it lasted, but I'm giving up lying for non-Lent.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
These founding documents appear quite inclusive. Would you like to show us some exceptions to these?
What you have demonstrated, with those two passages, is that, first, the folks who declared independence from Britain believed that all Men were Created equal (not "all people should be treated equally" -- a human with minimal intelligence could sniff out the difference); and, second, that no citizen should be deprived of the Lockean minima without the full gamut of the procedures available to other citizens (unless you're suggesting that slaves were not persons?).
Let me offer you some free advice: Have Mom or Dad proofread your work before you post it. They might find something you've missed.
Christians would argue that killing someone in the name of revenge is a sin and would subject your soul to eternal torment in hell.
Before pronouncing on Christian theology, it might be helpful to actually talk to some Christians some time.
Is that logic specious enough for you?
Yours is, given that it utterly fails to answer the question.
Let's play a little game. I call it "Placate the Moderator." I just invented it, so I'll share the rules:
There's only one player, that player being you. You start the game on Square One, which is also called the "Too Stupid to Breathe" square. Now, the object of the game is to get to the "Reasonably Intelligent Other" square, at the very end of a twisty path. Now, while many games rely on drawing cards, answering questions, tossing dice, or turning spinners to see how far they advance at any time. You don't have to worry about that; each remotely intelligent post moves you one square closer to the Winning Square, which is but a dozen squares away.
But beware! This is a sudden-death game. One more post like this one will knock your piece right off the board.
I'm gonna be away from a computer tomorrow, so I'm going to enlist the other moderators to help.
To borrow from a 1980s movie: Shall we play a game?
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
There was a time not long ago when you would have simply said, "You're an idiot!" and then "BLAM!" and he would have been nothing but an ink spot on the carpet.
This IS a kinder, gentler RedState, and you're nothing but a teddy bear!
You were not reading enough of the text. Let me put this in some context for you:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
What seems pretty clear here, and indeed from the preceding paragraph about the need to declare why political bonds were being broken, is that this sets out the rights of people to overthrow their government: "it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it".
So when it says "all men are created equal" it is clear that all men have the right to overthrow a tyrannical government and replace it with another. Yes, ALL people have the rights set out in the Declaration, but they have the right to demand this _of their own government_. So any Saudi, or Pakistani, or any other al Qaeda fighter in Afghanistan who wanted to overthrow the governments of their own country (they do) and replace them with one that respects human dignity (they don't) would indeed be acting in accordance with these principles.
But nowhere does it say in either the Declaration or the Constitution that unlawful combatants in a foreign field are to be treated as domestic criminals.
You may believe that this is appropriate for other reasons. But to say that either the Declaration or the Constitution demands it is simply false.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
I personally like this portion
and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness
Hmmmmm safety and happiness. I know I would be happier and safer with out terrorists trying to kill me. How bout you Q?
A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams
But this cannot be a basis for discarding basic rights. This is the point I was responding to - albeit made in a very misguided way.
And, of course, there is often a conflict between safety and happiness. There is no doubt that 15-30 year olds (especially males) would be safer if motorcycles were illegal. But happier? People LIKE doing unsafe things.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
No one is “redefining” Article 3. It’s a bit difficult to redefine something as ambiguous as “outrages upon personal dignity”. One can pretty much make what ever they wish to do or prevent others from doing fit that definition, which is why this entire matter is so politicized to begin with. All the President is requesting is Congress stipulate what U.S. interrogation techniques are and are not permissible up front now rather than after the fact. I am quite certain Amnesty International has plenty of quotes from the past that clearly imply General Powell executed the first Gulf War in a manner that caused “outrages upon the personal dignity” of certain individuals in Iraq, so spare me the Powell is “Holier than Though” quotes.
Also, The President is not talking about what detainees “deserve” as you state. He is talking about what actions are acceptable when gathering information from illegal combatants so that innocent lives may be spared from future unhonorable acts on the part of these individuals. We are quite aware of what America stands for which is why we fight honorably while they do not.
You insult those that wear the uniform honorably by inferring they are morally equivalent to those that do not where a uniform while targeting innocents because both were “created equally”. I am not sure what is so confusing about the word “created”, meaning nothing more than we start at birth as equal creations from our Maker (as the Founders believed), not royalty. That phrase does not mean we are all moral equivalents throughout the duration of our lives deserving of the same treatment as you suggest.
Those that chose to conduct themselves in a manner that is less than honorable once they have a conscience to know the difference are no longer equal to those that chose otherwise. You may believe that in the eyes of the laws of armed conflict Osama Bin Laden is equal to an honorable U.S. Marine on the battlefield because of your bastardization of the Declaration of Independence’s “created equal” clause, but that is not the case.
This is why historically combatants who did not conduct themselves honorably in battle were often summarily executed, on site. For example, German soldiers caught wearing the uniforms of dead American soldiers at the Battle of the Bulge in an attempt to infiltrate the American ranks by not making their insignia clear from a distance, as required by the laws of arm conflict, were immediately shot once discovered, immediately.
As much as you may like to believe you know something about the laws of armed conflict and believe the Bush Administration has taken some sort of radical departure from them, this is not the case. The fact is, right or wrong, fifty years ago these detainees would have been dead a long time ago. You are ignorant of history and the laws of armed conflict.
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
deserve a more substantial response than attacks on his intellect, claims that he is illogical, and threats to be banned. I'm not sure what sort of logic other members of Redstate are evoking when they claim that camanintx is being illogical, but according to every logic I've ever been taught, it follows from the rule of contradictories that when a universal affirmative proposition is true (All S are P), then a particular negative proposition (Some S are not P) *has to be* false. Consequently, if it is true that All men are created equal, then it *has to be* false that some men are not created false. And likewise, if the universal negative proposition "No person... shall be deprived of life, liberty, or happiness without due process of the law" is true, then once again, by the law of contradictradictories, it follows that the proposition "some persons shall be deprived of life, liberty, or happiness without due process of the law" has to be false. If you are unacquainted with these basic rules of logic, see for yourself here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/square/
One might suggest that these principles were intended only to hold for Americans, but I think this argument has to be erroneous in that *these principles were evoked to establish the injustice of England and therefore the right to found a sovereign nation*... That is, they were evoked prior to the founding of the United States, and were thus understood to be true independent of our sovereignity and citizenship. Nor, according to this argument, I think, can these principles be dismissed on the grounds that those being held are "enemy combattants", as enemy commbattants are persons and therefore subject to these principles by, once again, the law of contradiction.
So how does one respond to these arguments? It seems that the only way to feasably defeat these arguments is either to reject logic or reject the principles. Count me also baffled as to how someone vigorously defending the universality of these principles can be described as a relativist. The pythagorean theorem doesn't cease to be true in the Middle East. I don't see how principles such as these cease to be true in any circumstances either.
I'm not sure what sort of logic other members of Redstate are evoking when they claim that camanintx is being illogical, but according to every logic I've ever been taught, it follows from the rule of contradictories that when a universal affirmative proposition is true (All S are P), then a particular negative proposition (Some S are not P) *has to be* false.
As everything else you say follows from this, I think it would be helpful, before we go any farther (let alone further), to review what catamintx actually said in his very first comment. We might then, again by reading carefully, note how his follow-up was neither the same thing, nor even supported on its face the propositions he was advancing.
One might suggest that these principles were intended only to hold for Americans, but I think this argument has to be erroneous in that *these principles were evoked to establish the injustice of England and therefore the right to found a sovereign nation*
There are a few problems here. First, both of those principles were not being invoked for that reason; one was, one was not. Second, one of those principles was used as a universal declaration, the second was used as a prohibitive declaration within a very different context. Third, slavery and the status of slaves.
So how does one respond to these arguments?
By reading before one writes.
It seems that the only way to feasably defeat these arguments is either to reject logic or reject the principles.
Or -- and I know I'm out on a long limb here, but bear with me -- by considering how (1) we've traditionally addressed these problems, (2) by considering the extremely specific treaties we've signed to address these problems, and/or (3) by asking whether a universal principle uttered at the start of a kiss-off letter, and a restrictive clause aimed at certain fairly limited actions by a sovereign in the context of its citizenry, are actually applicable here.
I know, I know, I'm being a pedant, what with doing the exact same thing American jurists have done for two centuries. But there it is.
Count me also baffled as to how someone vigorously defending the universality of these principles can be described as a relativist. The pythagorean theorem doesn't cease to be true in the Middle East. I don't see how principles such as these cease to be true in any circumstances either.
For fear of insulting you further, I'm going to leave these statements to speak for themselves.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
"As everything else you say follows from this, I think it would be helpful, before we go any farther (let alone further), to review what catamintx actually said in his very first comment. We might then, again by reading carefully, note how his follow-up was neither the same thing, nor even supported on its face the propositions he was advancing."
I took this to be the core of his argument:
"Our country was created on the belief that all people should be treated equally. The Declaration of Independence says “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Notice that there are no exceptions listed. Don’t we teach our children that The Golden Rule is “do unto others as you would have done unto you”?"
It was from this that I was led to comment on logic. Knowing that you're aware of Aristotlean logic through you work with medieval theology, I also assume that you're familiar with the idea that negative statements can also function as universal statements, so I'm not sure that it's correct to claim that a prohibitive statement cannot be a universal statement. For instance, "thou shalt not murder" is a universal negative statement.
Your points about prior treaties is a good one, I'm less persuaded by your evocation of slavery. I take it that the United States is capable of acting immoraly and contrary to its own founding principle. I would see slavery as an instance of this. My take is that the famous 3/5 law was a symptom of this, insofar as if you can define something as not being human then you can maintain that your principle is universal *and* that you're not violating it.
You didn't offend me.
For full clarity, this was not his opening premise:
"Our country was created on the belief that all people should be treated equally. The Declaration of Independence says “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Notice that there are no exceptions listed. Don’t we teach our children that The Golden Rule is “do unto others as you would have done unto you”?"
This was:
Our country was created on the belief that all people should be treated equally.
The two things are neither identical, nor does the latter flow logically from the former, at least not without some significant a priori ground that was, let us be generous, assumed. That is his logical flaw. There are flaws in asserting that the two quoted precepts are relevant in this context; that they mean what they appear to mean, given the time's contextual understanding of them; or that those statements can be said to evoke, in isolation, the nation's founding principles. Those aren't the problems with his initial statement, and his follow-up was mere ground-shifting, with some of the added problems I noted. (This is without getting into "being sent to Hell" used as a proxy for "having one's life processes end," when the latter is the base-point of the analogy offered.)
Your points about prior treaties is a good one, I'm less persuaded by your evocation of slavery. I take it that the United States is capable of acting immoraly and contrary to its own founding principle.
Of course it is; but it's worth noting that the principle enunciated at the time did not mean then what it means now. There was no serious doubt among educated readers at the time that all Men are endowed with value by the act of Creation; it was how it sorted out thereafter that they differed from us. In other words, I would assert that the United States (each and as a whole) acted according to their and its Founding principles as they were then understood. It took a Civil War to change the perception of those principles, and a hundred years of pain after that to teach that lesson.
My take is that the famous 3/5 law was a symptom of this, insofar as if you can define something as not being human then you can maintain that your principle is universal *and* that you're not violating it.
The 3/5 was an inhuman, but clever, straddle of how to apportion representation when there were a lot of humans in one's district who could never elect representation, but who would need it regardless. The peculiar problem was that most men, all women, and all slaves (male and female) could not exercise the franchise; but to accord each of these groups equal standing would have provided the Southern States far too much representative power. In other words, it was inhuman only insofar as it took as a given an atrocious premise, i.e., that slaves were human chattel; it was, otherwise, and primarily, Realpolitik.
You didn't offend me.
As others have noted, I'm getting weak in my old age.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
the US that aren't "treated" equally.
Children are not treated "equally" they have certain rights, but they also aren't treated as adults. Their due proccess rights are extremely less comprehensive than those set up for an adult. Also, there are rules that children have to follow that don't apply to adults (some of them for good reason).
But during this whole conversation all I could think is the obvious is that children don't get the exact same rights with the exact same due proccess that adults do-and the courts have upheld this over and over again, they have also upheld various restrictions on the rights of children.
I think this is case in point your (I think it was yours) earlier argument that "created" doesn't mean the same thing as "treated."
I just can't swallow the argument that terrorists/enemy combatants that fight the way our enemy has fought in this war deserve the full boat criminal due proccess rights as provided in the constitution. I am fine and dandy with a military tribunal set up in Gitmo or similar, with summary executions for the guys who think chopping off heads and blowing up civilians is the way to wage war.
Let's start with the Declaration and our not being a nation at that time. You see the purpose of that document was to claim independence and create nationhood, which is exactly as the founders took it to be. You know that, so why the specious claim about non-nationhood ? No where, except today, have I seen the Declaration described as other than a founding document.
Next, universal affirmations. But of course the Declaration was not a universal affirmation. Recall that little part about the Indians, also identified as Savages, if you wish you may throw in the subsequent treatment of said savages by subsequent events and by contemporaries of the Declaration.
Then add to the mix the treatment, including murder, of the Tories.
Then for a topping consider slave holding, the 3/5ths rule in the Constitution and more I'm too weary to pile on. But I will note Mr jefferson's slave ownership.
Now where were we with universals?
Oh yes, " when a universal proposition is true". For the proposition to be universally true means in pure logic that it's truth is accepted by all, otherwise it is not and can't be universal. My comments above will attest to the notable lack of universality in the proposition, which after all is still a proposition and not neccessarily a proof.
Two questions; what particular pythagorean theorem are you citing?
Also, by chance are you the perfectly despicable Brian Leiter?
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
in Phoenix and Charleston.
Of all the people one would think would understand the falacy in this reciprocity argument, one would think John McCain would be in the vanguard.
But, sadly, McCain and Graham are more interested in publicity and air time than in truth, logic and reality.
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
Has made him unfit for command.
--
The Presidency is a position more easily critiqued than attained.
No longer. I don't think McCain's time as a POW is anything more than a prop in this, and the torture amendment, debate. McCain is driven by one thing... becoming President. He thinks that to do so he will need his fondlers in the Press Corps. They adore him when he takes shots at Bush.
JohnnyBoy is doing nothing but throwing red meat to the Lions of the Press Corps who are feeding his ego in return.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
And if so, I think he's just daring anyone to say what I did, so his "fondlers" can come to his defense against the rabid right.
I hope he runs. He won't know what hit him.
--
The Presidency is a position more easily critiqued than attained.
It amazes me that Senators McCain, Graham, and Warner would buck their party, on an issue that is probably popular with most voters (allowing CIA interrogators to keep terrorists up all night or play loud music), over some worries about what might happen to US prisoners in other countries.
Don't they know that some GOP House members are struggling to keep their seats? None of these Senators are up for re-election this year, and they come from solidly conservative states (AZ, SC, and VA) where they don't need to be "moderate" to be re-elected.
Don't they realize that, if they voted FOR the law allowing tough interrogation of terrorists, all Republicans could use this as a huge issue against Democrats who voted against it? It is much easier to convince voters that Democrats are trying to prevent the CIA from protecting the American people if Republicans are united in voting for it. Some voters might start to wonder, what good is a Senate majority if a few renegades like McCain and Graham prevent it from passing laws?
But these Senators, who don't face the voters this year, are giving voters the impression that the GOP majority can't get things done. Could they at least step out of the way and let the rest of our majority do what we elected them for?
The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.
We are dealing with an enemy who deliberately uses tactics that descend to such deep levels of brutality and inhumanity in the hope that his more civilized opponent will take pause and refrain from going to the same depths, granting him victory by default.
As the campaign in the Pacific, 1942 to 1945, proved; treating the enemy, at that time the Japanese, humanely would not lead to the "ultimate victory."
If the enemy refused to surrender in the face of overwhelming force; flame, explosive charge, bullet, and bulldozer brought about the desired result.
We, as a nation, over the last sixty one years have stood on the shoulders of giants as we luxuriated in the peace they earned for us with their blood. Senators McCain, Graham, Warner, and Snowe are determined to fritter that dearly earned luxury away.
and we did not stoop to that level...and we prevailed. At that time we maintained our higher moral standing regarding prisoners, and we still managed to win the war. I guess we are more afraid of the current enemy. More "terrorized" by the terrorists if you will.
of prisoners in the Pacific Theater. I think if you look beyond the mythological "history" of the Pacific War, you'll find that it was pretty much "no quarter asked, none given."
You're right that once a Japanese soldier assumed the status of POW, the treatment was humane, but don't decieve yourself about what the ROE were.
In Vino Veritas
and I think the factual basis is arguable, it really proves my point. Reciprocity is a fallacy. Just because you treat prisoners nice has no effect whatsoever on the treatment your own prisoners receive.
There might be reasons to seek some illusory moral high ground, but reciprocal treatment of our prisoners is not among those reasons.
A Star Trek episode addressed the idea of cleaning up war. As a result, two planets had developed computerized war that actually killed people, but didn't mess up the terrain. The war had lasted for hundreds of years. War is hell, needs to remain hell, to ensure that we do not grow too fond of it. We have an enemy who attacked us, then went undercover, under the cover of women and children, pretending to be civilians. When they are captured, we should be free to elicit the information we need from them, regardless of means, to flush out the other quarry. When we are through with them, they should be eliminated. Shoot them with bullets dipped in pig fat, and let all of the others know the fate of these. You cannot fight a civilized war when defending your values and that often requires setting aside those values to ensure they survive.
Chuck
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." --James Madison
"Living Documents" suffer this distortion.
Interesting comparison.
By over-regulating war and turning it into a criminal investigation, are we putting our own people into disintegration chambers?
Do we need to stand up to Kofi Anan 7?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
As I get older, I find it more advisable to NOT use Star Trek as a reference. However, it IS interesting to note the number of really, REALLY horrible weapons that were invented by people who honestly thought that they could end war by making it too gruesome to contemplate. As I recall, the list includes the Gattling gun, the Thompson submachine gun, and chemical weapons.
A favorite saying of mine:
Never try to apply a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem.
Terrorism is a Babylon 5 problem and all McCain & co. can come up with are Star Trek solutions.
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
The MSM has won. Who gives a flying F*** for the Iraqi's that want freedom? Harry Reid? Conyers? Murtha? McCain? Warner? Hillary? Teddy from M@SS? This whole group would sell their souls for votes.
Yes, let us go back to the halcyon days of 9/10 when the big worry was Oprah's weight gain or which Dem killed Chandra Levy. Don't y'all want to go back to the good old days?
The true irony of this situation is that many of the people our lefty friends are so concerned about are fighting to bring back a government that had no problems feeding political enemies into plastic shredders, and the rest want to see the establishment of a worldwide Emirate that employs amputation to address theft, public floggings to discourage immodsesty, beheading for practicing the wrong religion, and stoning to prevent illegitimate births.
Anyone who says that we're loosing the moral high ground to these people is either delisional or has completely lost sight of what we're fighting against.
by saying I am not an expert in any way about the Geneva Conventions or what actually goes on in interrogation centres. So I can't pronounce what is the right or wrong opinion here with any authority.
I am confounded by the response of this website's membership to these three Senators' stand.
Perhaps everyone here except me is an expert in such matters, which I doubt, but I would expect a certain degree of deference to the opinions of a military lawyer, a former POW and the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee in a field where they really should know what is best.
Even more surprising are allegations that this is being done for political gain. Not one of the three Senators are up for election this year, and so are not immediately concerned with maintaining a degree of independence from an unpopular administration. And by opening this rift they endanger the unity of the Republican party against the Democrats in the pre-election season.
Really, I think this is a matter of principle for these three, and I'm shocked that they are instantly the targets of such vitriol for this action.
True, everyone here seems to hate McCain anyway, but John Warner! Doesn't he get a little respect? Isn't he allowed to diverge from the administration's point of view on this?
Suggesting that terrorists be released in their home states is clearly over the line. What purpose do such attacks serve?
---
This is my sig.
There are many like it.
But this one is mine.
Canadian, right? Let's get a few ground rules out of the way before we start.
First, the direct or indirect argument that one is not fit to argue a point (a policy point!) because one has not experienced it is contrary to 2,500 years of developed logic; human experience; and the rules of this site. So let's not go there again, ok? Thus:
Perhaps everyone here except me is an expert in such matters, which I doubt, but I would expect a certain degree of deference to the opinions of a military lawyer, a former POW and the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee in a field where they really should know what is best.
This is an off-limits line of discussion. Period.
On to the rest:
Even more surprising are allegations that this is being done for political gain. Not one of the three Senators are up for election this year, and so are not immediately concerned with maintaining a degree of independence from an unpopular administration. And by opening this rift they endanger the unity of the Republican party against the Democrats in the pre-election season.
The perception is that every American Senator looks in the mirror and sees a President looking back. John McCain has made no secret of this. Mr. Graham has certain ... limitations ... that would keep him from the presidency if he had to be elected to it, but the vice-presidency is always there, and even were it not, Senators pride themselves on their uniqueness. With respect to Mr. Warner, I cannot even fathom why he's doing this, unless he, too, is warming up for 2008.
We reach this perception because the principles they assert would do no good to American soldiers, and would actively harm the rules of war on which we rely. To provide illegal combatants with the protections of licit ones is to undo one of the most critical distinctions that we've tried to keep in place since Augustine began formulating rules about how and when Christians may fight. Given that even a blinkered moron could see this, we're forced to conclude that either (1) these gentlemen are morons (and I'm open to that) or (2) they are putting ambition ahead of much else.
Really, I think this is a matter of principle for these three, and I'm shocked that they are instantly the targets of such vitriol for this action.
Oh, sure, they're destroying the combatant-civilian distinction we've tried to hold in place at all costs for two thousand years, and doing all sorts of political damage in the process, but aside from that, they're swell!
Suggesting that terrorists be released in their home states is clearly over the line. What purpose do such attacks serve?
Hyperbole. We use it in this country. Move on.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
One would think the man would have a little shame after it came to light it was his office and his boy that leaked Plame’s name to Novak. He sits idly by for years while people he serves and serves with are destroyed and he knows the exculpatory truth all along?!?! Anyone with any shame would be asking for forgiveness from the White House rather than blindsiding it and undermining its ability to command this war.
Besides, the job was his for the taking and he turned it down. Back in 1999 it was a pretty safe bet if Powell ran the Commander in Chief job was his. He opted not to run and take the sure thing because he, or was it his wife, didn’t want to deal with it. But when given the opportunity, he gladly chimes in to undermine the man from his “team” that was willing to take it on.
He could have been the one deciding how to command these matters, but chose not to. What he lacks in shame and integrity he makes up for in gall.
He made the point that saving lives is the paramount consideration, the humane thing.
This makes sense to me. If it's a choice between rough interrogation of a terrorist (as distinguished from real torture) and the life of his prospective victims, wouldn't the victims' rights override our natural (and commendable) revulsion at the rough interrogation?
If you are in favor of Americans torturing prisoners, just say so. I don't care. It is the obfuscation that bothers me.
So if they don't say they're in favor of torture, why don't YOU acknowledge that they haven't, instead of accusing them of obfuscation?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Torture gets a bad rap as being ineffective, because it's so easily overused. Mr. Bush apparently disagrees with me, and doesn't think it should be part of our bag of tricks. I understand that position, even if you do not.
Torture should be used to extract information that A) we know is there, and that B) can be independently checked without torture, but C) can't be gotten without it. That's a fairly rare, but important, set of circumstances.
I don't buy the Golden Rule argument in this case. The terrorists have already demonstrated their opinion, by their treatment of prisoners. The will torture us regardless.
If the choice is between living by torturing and dying while avoiding it ... hand me that iron, will ya?
And don't give me that moral equivalence crap. There's a huge difference between us and them, even if we take on the practice that I'm probably alone in advocating. We would be doing it only to the degree needed to gain information. They do it to punish, and to exact revenge.
If you think those things are equivalent, well, I'm sorry.
--
The Presidency is a position more easily critiqued than attained.
The hard part is, though, how would you ensure that there wasn't a bit of glee on the part of the torturer, to ensure that we WEREN'T doing it to punish?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
You make the interrogator responsible for getting the best information possible, and train them to use the least amount of coercion to get the job done, as we do now. The best thing is to have prisoners "defect": decide on their own that they'd rather be on our side. Excessive use of force hinders that.
This whole discussion is stupid. If the GC apply to someone, we can't question them at all. If the GC don't apply, none of their provisions ought to apply, so as to encourage people to adhere to the rules of war.
We ought to be trying terrorists with a 9mm jury.
--
The Presidency is a position more easily critiqued than attained.
Seriously.
If doesn't really matter from a policy standpoint whether the torturer is laughing or crying. Are you saying that guys who volunteer for return assignments in combat zones make their actions murder?
He's the one who said that we are distingished from they, in that we torture to help people, while they torture to hurt people.
So I was just wondering how he deals with that point.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Seriously. This isn't even clever.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
I favor torture in certain circumstances. And most Americans agree with me, they just don't know it.
I read an article a few months ago about a Nicholas Cage movie where he is after the bad guy who is about to do something to a little girl, or some such innocent. In order to find her/stop the carnage, Cage shoots the bad guy's toes off one at a time (or some similar action - my memory fails me). Audiences across America cheered in the theater.
But then they go home and post on some blog that "Torture - bad. Me - good."
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
Streiff is right, these terrorists don't give a [poop] about people rights so why should we care about theirs. As he points out, the only real deterrent is the threat of retribution. We should take a lesson from John S. Mosby and behead the fourteen terrorists just moved to Guantanamo, then post the video on Aljazeera with a statement that this is what happens if they keep up their ways.
Bush has never served (Texas Air National Guard doesn't count), and McCain has, and therefore, in my opinion, has a little more experience and insight on this issue. The arguments that keep resounding here are 'terrorists are unlawful combatants and undeserving of protection under the Geneva Convention', and I agree, but our boys are considered unlawful combatants by our enemies when the *very few* commit unlawful war crimes (AG, Mahmoudiya); and I say that carefully; I served during the first gulf war and saw firsthand what a force for good our soldiers are. My point is only, when we set the precedent of changing the Geneva Convention to suit our needs, what happens to our moral authority, and our soldiers, during the next conflict? Or the one after that?
I guess everyone immediately stops at 'the terrorists' when discussing this issue when the maybe a bigger picture needs to be examined. Just my opinion-
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
I keep hearing this phrase thrown around. Since you are one of the people doing it, can you tell me what it means? I'm pretty sure the rest of the world has never ever considered the US to be a "moral authority".
when we set the precedent of changing the Geneva Convention to suit our needs, what happens to our moral authority, and our soldiers, during the next conflict?
Has any American opponent in war, whether uniformed (Japan) or non-uniformed (Al Queda) EVER paid any attention to the Geneva Convention? No.
I see no reason why we should not withdraw from the Convention. Our enemies ignore it and it is simply a tool used against us.
Since you are one of the people doing it, can you tell me what it means?
Sure, it means that we are a nation that adheres to laws, our own and international ones that we voluntarily signed onto; unlike rogue states, AQ, and those that do not adhere to law.
Has any American opponent in war, whether uniformed (Japan) or non-uniformed (Al Queda) EVER paid any attention to the Geneva Convention?
Perhaps not, but the conventions were the basis for war crimes tribunals in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, etc. and therefore served at least some purpose.
Maybe you're right and we should withdraw from the conventions alltogether in order to prosecute the GWOT. However, my point was to ask what happens to our soldiers *after* the GWOT.
And, as I stated, I don't think that terrorist fall under the protection of the conventions, so why bother making the change?
Is from the stupid idiots who insist on giving Geneva protections to irregular forces. This is JUST THE OPPOSITE of the intentions of the Geneva accords which were trying to discourage the use of spies, saboteurs, and terrorists.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
(though as it happens they are) it is that the provisions of the Geneva Conventions do not, by design, cover unlawful combatants. No change is necessary therefore to exclude them from coverage. All that is necessary is the implementation of the Conventions as written.
Extending the Conventions to cover unlawful combatants *would* be a change, and there would not be support from the signatory nations to make this change.
What you are left with proposing, then, is that the United States should unilaterally apply protections to unlawful combatants which no other nation accords them and other nations as a whole do not think they deserve.
Why?
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
But, he refuses to define precisely what should be "allowed" during interrogations. Leading most to believe that his motives are more for grandstanding purposes, than his widely broadcast concern for the common soldier. By all means, let McCain detail what he would accept as "proper" treatment of these detainees. I believe that GW has made that request, and the response has not been supplied. And it probably never will. At least, not to the liking of his leftist groupies.
No one is trying to "redefine" article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Article 3 is need of "primary" definition.
there are two reasons, I think, for McCain's position. First, I think what he's doing is grandstanding and David Frum is right that he's trying to innoculate Dems from the issue so they will do well in November setting up a McCain 2008 run on "electability." Second, he knows duress works and if he helps define the methods he either has to back down from his own high horse or he has to outlaw duress and take responsibility for the next terrorist attack.
is prohibited. If you think you can contribute, drop me a line and we can discuss it, if that's too much trouble. Adios.
and their execution. Trivial maybe but I want to get it off my chest. Just pror to the firing squad performing the execution, a group of captured German nurses honored a request from the prisoners and sang "silent Night" from their nearby quarters.
A humane moment amidst carnage and death.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
I wanted to start this by saying, that since I am not a conservative I guess you may consider me a 'troll.' But since I think/hope that the goal of your reading/writing on a political website is to discuss politics, and further refine your own position I will post anyway.
I think that Socrates is right, and that torture can be effective in the circumstances he discussed. I also think that no matter what the rules set up for the government are, that when these two circumstances are met that 'torture' will be used. Since these circumstances are extremely rare, I see no reason for clearly defining torture as acceptable. It should only be used in extreme circumstances, which in my mind are so extreme that they need not be clearly defined for public consumption. Of the hundreds of detainees at Gitmo I doubt that any of them (outside of the 14 recently moved there) met these circumstances at any time (and they certainly do not meet them now).
Why don't I think we should clearly define torture as acceptable? Well, I think that if we want to treat terrorists as criminals, then we should treat them as criminals, and conversely if we want to treat them as soldiers we should treat them as soldiers... though I think criminals is much more appropriate. If they meet Socrates' criterion chances are that will only be for a matter of days or weeks, so after that they could still be put into criminal court, and their punishment should involve never being free again. Also, I think that the United States should avoid making torture acceptable, because I believe we are the greatest country in the world, and to torture every single terrorist detainee to see what he knows would greatly cheapen that.
I guess most of you probably want military tribunals (and the death penalty), but I don't understand why that's appropriate if they aren't legal combatants. It's not like the detainees are regular soldiers who committed crimes while soldiers, they weren't soldiers in the first place. So why should they be tried in Military tribunals?
I think that Socrates is right, and that torture can be effective in the circumstances he discussed. I also think that no matter what the rules set up for the government are, that when these two circumstances are met that 'torture' will be used. Since these circumstances are extremely rare, I see no reason for clearly defining torture as acceptable.
You do see the problem with this, don't you. If you accept that using duress during interrogation, and I reject the concept of using torture BTW, then we need to define it. Else, it will be outlawed under the nebulous construction of Common Article 3 and anyone using the methods or allowing the methods to be used will be committing a felony.
If you want to take the position that you'd rather see an indefinite number of innnocents killed than one man undergo waterboarding or sleep deprivation, the McCain-Graham view, that's fine. But you can't have it both ways.
guess most of you probably want military tribunals (and the death penalty), but I don't understand why that's appropriate if they aren't legal combatants. It's not like the detainees are regular soldiers who committed crimes while soldiers, they weren't soldiers in the first place. So why should they be tried in Military tribunals?
Look at the photo at the top of the page. Illegal combatants tried by a military tribunal.
Why should tribunals not be used to prosecute this uniquely military offense?
Sure discussion is allowed. It's what we do here. Trolling is the attempt to disrupt the operation of the site by ignoring rational debate and throwing insults instead of arguments. I'm not a moderator, but I don't see your post as coming close. Incidentally, the ad hominem rules apply to conservatives as well as liberals.
Regarding torture, I am not aware of any public figure who advocates its use other than Professor Alan Dershowitz, who is by no means a conservative.
The argument here is about stressful interrogation techniques. And *of course* you need a definition of torture either if you are going to ban it, or if, a la Dershowitz, you are going to allow it under limited circumnstances. The only scenario in which you would not need a definition is if it was always and under all circumstances legal.
Now, obviously, the question of where you draw the line is going to be controversial. This is a legitimate topic for debate.
But the debate is not well served by people proffering one definition and then saying "anyone who disagrees with me is advocating torture".
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
Placing panties on a head, or even waterboarding a terrorist is NOT torture.
Now beheading someone on video, that would go beyond torture.
You have a very skewed version of the truths regarding the war we are in. Sometimes we don't have the time to offer the path of justice you suggest. I also doubt we are tortuing every single terrorist detainee, at least not torture in the ways most people believe. Our people have developed advanced methods that wear a person down over time to offer up the information they have in their heads.
I'm sorry, but you are just dead wrong and don't understand what's at stake in all of this. Go watch the 9-11 tower hits again, google some pics of the jumpers that had to make the decision as to how they wanted to die, by fire or a jump to their deaths. You really need to see much more of what terrorist handiwork looks like.
In no way shape or form have I forgotten September 11th, and I fully understand the goals of terrorists do not have my best interest in mind. I also understand that I don't ever want the handiwork of Americans to look anything like that.
I am proud to be an American, because America does great things. When US troops treat prisoners the way prisoners deserve to be treated that makes me proud. Why? Because no matter what you think the terrorists and contrary to the way they treat our troops, they are still men, and as such they should receive just treatment. Plenty of criminals have deserved less who have acted within the United States. The Unabomber, Charles Manson, the list goes on, but one of the things that makes our country great is we treat everyone equally, and give everyone a fair trial regardless of what we think they deserve beforehand.
We were more than fair to the Japanese we captured. This did not prevent them abusing and even killing our personnel they captured.
Jihadist ideology does not even recognize the nation state. The Jihadists aren't even signatories to the treaty. Because they are illegal combatants, they should not get better treatment than spies and saboteurs in other conflicts.