Posted on 10/05/2005 8:08:18 PM PDT by FairOpinion
I see you don't have a clue about what the GCs are and what part of them apply according to the Commander-in-Chief. The treatment of prisoners does apply and what you posted does not. Also, they are not intended to be followed only on the condition that the enemy follows them.
Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution gives Congres the power to, "make rules concerning captures on land and water" and "to make rules for the regulation of land and naval forces."
Why do you think that we should give terrorists and enemy combattants the same rights as we give to US citizens? In fact this law would give them more rights, because by giving them those rights, we impair our ability to protect the lives of American citizens. Do you consider the comfort of terrorists to be more important than our lives, the lives of innocent American citizens?
Did you notice that this creates a US law, that is based on the UN convention's definition of "Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment"? Do you think we should use UN law as the basis for making US laws?
Did you notice the ambiguity? Almost anything qualifies as "degrading treatment". If we don't provide airconditioning, and the terrorist detainees sweat, that could be considered by some to be "degrading". So if our soldiers don't provide air conditioning, then they can be prosecuted for breaking this "terrorist protection law". Do you think this is a good idea?
Please read the actual text of the amendment again:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r109:1:./temp/~r109H252jM:e911694:
(a) In General.--"No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
(b) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose any geographical limitation on the applicability of the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment under this section.
(c) Limitation on Supersedure.--The provisions of this section shall not be superseded, except by a provision of law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act which specifically repeals, modifies, or supersedes the provisions of this section.
(d) Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Defined.--In this section, the term ``cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment'' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984. "
We are not only detaining terrorists and enemy combatants. Iraqi and Afghanistani civilains have been mistreated as well. So you could say I believe in human rights, regardless of what our enemies think or do. How about those two Chinese that we can't even let out of Gitmo after 2 years of their being there and they are not a threat? Argue with them.
Do you think we should use UN law as the basis for making US laws?
Sometimes, yes. We are party to many international treaties and obligations.
If we don't provide airconditioning, and the terrorist detainees sweat, that could be considered by some to be "degrading". So if our soldiers don't provide air conditioning, then they can be prosecuted for breaking this "terrorist protection law".
I do think that intentionally making prisoners cells freezing cold, or intentionally super heating cells should be strictly regulated so that our troops know how and when to use these techniques.
It gives them no rights at all. It is rule applied to US military operations. Grab a copy of the Constitution and read it. See if you can find where this gives them "rights".
"Why do you think that we should give terrorists and enemy combatants the same rights as we give to US citizens? In fact this law would give them more rights, because by giving them those rights, we impair our ability to protect the lives of American citizens. Do you consider the comfort of terrorists to be more important than our lives, the lives of innocent American citizens?My post was talking about the point of view of someone in a combat zone. If people are going to prosecuted over these issues then as a soldier I would want clear rules that cannot be over-ridden by someone with a higher rank who shows up and gives me a verbal order - especially I don't know their name and their real branch of service.
But to answer your question, I do not believe the enemy on the battlefield deserves the same rights as U.S. citizens.
But they have general human rights.
I'm not sure it would be possible to specify what we mean by degrading. That would have to be determined by case law.
As for the U.N.... I don't like the U.N. but right now it is the repository of international. I'm fine with ignoring international law except when we want others to follow it. In those case it may be appropriate to have US and UN law in accord with each other.
Of course I would also argue the way the MSM handed the situation made it much worse but that's another thread.
BTTT - Anybody watching?
Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution gives Congres the power to, "make rules concerning captures on land and water" and "to make rules for the regulation of land and naval forces."
Oooh, OK... Egg on my face.
However, I still contend that these regulations are entirely unnecessary and will be abused to the harm of the United States in the future. They are an unprincipled reaction to over-the-top reporting of non-torture by a few out of control soldiers. We will all feel longterm punishment for the relatively minor misdeeds scandalized at Abu Ghraib.
Regarding "No person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation." - the referenced document is Army Field Manual 34-52, Intelligence Interrogation. You can view a html version here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/fm34-52/toc.htm
Hat tip - Mudvillegazette.com
This actually gives more excuses to prosecute US soldiers, not fewer.
There are no regulations now. It's arbitrary. If they existed, a copy of the obtainable guidelines would be obtainable and some of them even posted on FR.
" They are an unprincipled reaction to over-the-top reporting of non-torture by a few out of control soldiers.
Out of ocntrol soldiers? WHere where their officers? Are these out of control soldiers the ones that ordered BG Karpinski to stay out of the prison? Did they set the rules? Was it their idea to house all the prisons in their bday suits? Was that a water conservation measure?
Congress adressing a problem according to their duty and power is not an, "unprincipled, over the top reaction."
" We will all feel longterm punishment for the relatively minor misdeeds scandalized at Abu Ghraib."
Hmmm. minor misdeeds. Prison terms for several soliers of 3-10 years are minor misdeeds? BG Karpinski said, MI told her to stay out of it. The result is what it is. Congress sees a problem and 90% of the Senate agrees it needs to be addressed.
With Powell, everything is always about him...how policy affected him, his job, his stature, blah, blah, blah. He has an ego to match Hillary's.
The senator from Alaska voted against it.
Radio discussion on Imus, I think,(McCain's always on Imus), this am, or it might have been NPR...about this, with McCain on promoting it and Stevens of Alaska proudly stating he'd vote against it if his was the only NAY. The upshot seemed to be that the amendment would be dropped from the armed forces bill and never make it through. Thank God.
Didn't Bush say in that speech he gave this morning that something like ten terrorist attacks had been prevented or stopped in the US since 9/11?
There may not be federal regulations, but I'm guessing there are military regulations regarding treatment of prisoners. How else could the perpetrators be court martialed?
Out of ocntrol soldiers? WHere where their officers? Are these out of control soldiers the ones that ordered BG Karpinski to stay out of the prison? Did they set the rules? Was it their idea to house all the prisons in their bday suits? Was that a water conservation measure?
I'm not claiming the abuses didn't happen. They did. However, I don't think there is evidence that it's a widespread problem. The abuses occurred at one facility, and were not severe enough to deserve the "torture" label.
Congress adressing a problem according to their duty and power is not an, "unprincipled, over the top reaction."
Congress addressing a rare, localized problem which was venomously over-hyped by anti-military Bush-bashers by enacting watershed legislation granting Constitutional protections to the murderous enemies of the United States is. But maybe that's just me.
Hmmm. minor misdeeds. Prison terms for several soliers of 3-10 years are minor misdeeds? BG Karpinski said, MI told her to stay out of it. The result is what it is. Congress sees a problem and 90% of the Senate agrees it needs to be addressed.
You left out a word. Their misdeeds are relatively minor, when compared with real, historical torture endured by prisoners of war. Abuse of this nature is endured by high school kids and fraternity pledges every day. This is not to excuse bad behavior, for it certainly was, but torture it ain't.
The fact that the perpetrators have received appropriate penalties for their deeds is further proof that this legislation is unnecessary. It's akin to "hate crime" legislation, where behavior that is already illegal is made "extra bad" by legislators in an attempt to "do something about the problem." The problem is not a lack of rules -- if those are truly lacking, with what were the convicted soldiers charged? -- but a lack of accountability and enforcement.
I am not a lawyer, but I have severe reservations about this amendment. The president must veto it.
Most of those convicted had enough training and experience to be able to know that, in general, they were mistreating the prisoners. I don't think pvts like England did. The officers in charge set up and allowed this Lord of the Flies sit.
"The abuses occurred at one facility, and were not severe enough to deserve the "torture" label. "I don't think there is evidence that it's a widespread problem.""
If not for the cheap ubiquitous camera, you'd be claiming less than one.
"Abuse of this nature is endured by high school kids and fraternity pledges every day. This is not to excuse bad behavior, for it certainly was, but torture it ain't."
Prisoners were forced to urinate and deficate on themselves. They were beaten and stompted. They were housed naked. If America's sons and daughters wish to submit to this crap, that's fine. Congress doesn't want it's armed forces engaging in it.
"...venomously over-hyped by anti-military Bush-bashers by enacting watershed legislation granting Constitutional protections to the murderous enemies of the United States is. But maybe that's just me."
Grab a copy of the Constitution and see if you can find a speck of justification for this claim.
In general, captured enemy is to be fed and treated in a similar manor to your own troops. Just as members of the US Mil. are not to divulge information, the treaties and conventions the US adheres to honor their enemy's right to do so. Torture and mistreatment, regardless of how "benign" it's described as, is not allowed. The measure is "how do we expect our captured troops to be treated", not how are they treated.
" The problem is not a lack of rules -- if those are truly lacking, with what were the convicted soldiers charged?"
Most were obvious violations, but this is irrelevant. The Senate sees a need to address this.
With a 90-9 majority, there isn't much point to a veto, unless we can persuade our senators to pull their collective heads out of the sand before they vote to override the veto.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.