home

It's Time For Democrats to Take a Stand Against Torture

By TChris, Section Terror Detainees
Posted on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 08:30:36 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

The White House wants to "reinterpret" the Geneva Conventions to permit a more aggressive approach to the interrogation of prisoners. John Negroponte told recalcitrant Republican senators that the Conventions "impose intolerable limits on any interrogation methods American intelligence officers might use against future terror suspects held by the Central Intelligence Agency in secret overseas prisons."

Those limits protect American soldiers from abuse and torture. It is intolerable that an administration official would advocate the weakening of an international agreement that safeguards captured Americans.

According to the NY Times, President Bush is "trying to put Democrats in a box by forcing them to take a stand and vote on Mr. Bush's authority to run two of his most controversial antiterror programs." Do Democrats need to be "forced" to take a stand against torture? Shouldn't we expect Democrats to stand in favor of long-standing agreements that assure humane treatment of American prisoners?

The Times says "Senators Warner, McCain and Graham appeared to be providing cover for the Democrats, allowing them to stay on the sidelines ..." Why would Democrats want to be on the sidelines? They should be vocal in their objection to any administration proposal that enhances the risk that American prisoners will be subjected to mistreatment.

If Democrats seriously believe they need "cover" before they take a principled stand against torture, they need to reevaluate their reasons for holding elective office. There is nonetheless "cover" aplenty, given the risks that inhere in the administration's approach:

[I]n a letter sent to the Armed Services Committee on Thursday, 27 retired military leaders urged Congress to reject the White House proposal to reinterpret the definition of Common Article 3.

The letter said the proposal "poses a grave threat to American service members, now and in future wars," noting that American troops are now deployed in areas where the article is their only source of protection if they are captured.

"If degradation, humiliation, physical and mental brutalization of prisoners is decriminalized or considered permissible under a restrictive interpretation of Common Article 3,'' the letter warned, "we will forfeit all credible objections should such barbaric practices be inflicted upon American prisoners.

Democrats shouldn't hide from this issue. They should proudly tell their constituents that they will fight against any administration proposal that puts American troops at risk. Their constitutents should tell them that they expect no less.

< Guest on Nancy Grace Show Commits Suicide | Eyechecks to be Used to Bust Drug Users >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    It's Time For Democrats to Take a Stand Against Torture | 19 comments (19 topical)
    Re: It's Time For Democrats to Take a Stand Agains (none / 0) (#1)
    by DawesFred60 on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 10:56:44 PM EST
    yes stop torture inside the usa and after that maybe outside, see reports on our own prison system.

    Re: It's Time For Democrats to Take a Stand Agains (none / 0) (#2)
    by jarober on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 10:56:44 PM EST
    You say: "Those limits protect American soldiers from abuse and torture. It is intolerable that an administration official would advocate the weakening of an international agreement that safeguards captured Americans." Questions: -- Did our good treatment of Japanese soldiers during WWII prevent the Japanese from mistreating Allied captives? -- Have the jihadists made any pretense of treating captives well, or do they kill with wild abandon? Don't kid yourself - our treatment of captives won't have any impact on what the jihadists do. Which is not to say that we should drop to their level. Just do us all a favor and pick a reasonable argument. Any soldier captured by the Taliban or by the Iraqi jihadists is doomed. They know it, you know it. We all know it.

    Re: It's Time For Democrats to Take a Stand Agains (none / 0) (#3)
    by John Mann on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 11:29:54 PM EST
    Any soldier captured by the Taliban or by the Iraqi jihadists is doomed. They know it, you know it. We all know it.
    I certainly don't disagree with this comment, James, but it wasn't always the case. I remember a group of U.S. soldiers that were captured by Iraqi forces early in the war. They were released unharmed, and were neither tortured, abused or beheaded. In fact, their only complaint was that they got tired of eating chicken all the time. Things changed when it became clear to the Iraqis that the American occupiers were willing to torture, abuse and murder Iraqis, many of whom were never treated as prisoners of war, and many of whom were released from Abu Ghraib without ever being charged with any kind of crime. I could go on about other American atrocities that have occurred in the past 3 1/2 years, but why bother? As you mentioned, they know it, you know it, we all know it.

    Re: It's Time For Democrats to Take a Stand Agains (none / 0) (#4)
    by bad Jim on Thu Sep 14, 2006 at 12:50:03 AM EST
    I invite anyone who disagrees to sport a bumper sticker reading "Torture Makes America Safer." "Torture is a Traditional Family Value" probably won't resonate with the crowd either. Okay, we could have a magnetic ribbon, reading "Support the Troops" on one end, and "Torture Terrorists" on the other. Or a plain bumper sticker, "Dare to Torture the Enemy". Torture works if you want a confession. Information is harder to come by. I'll bet that most torture endorsers are also evolution deniers and global warming deniers, which is to say, not members of the reality-based community.

    Re: It's Time For Democrats to Take a Stand Agains (none / 0) (#10)
    by soccerdad on Thu Sep 14, 2006 at 06:05:35 AM EST
    Do Democrats need to be "forced" to take a stand against torture? Shouldn't we expect Democrats to stand in favor of long-standing agreements that assure humane treatment of American prisoners?
    Are these trick questions? What is it going to take for you to understand that there is little policy difference between democratic leadership and the Republicans. Both are pro-war, pro-torture, pro-spying, pro-corporation, and anti-worker. The only difference is whether you get religioud fanatics with your policy. Unless there is a change in democratic leadership, I hope that the Dems keep losing. The destruction of the Democratic party and its hypocritical leadership maybe the only way to make things better in the long run. Actually maybe the Dems should win thus giving them the chance to prove to everyone they are no different then mainstream Repubs. Ask yourself this: what chance does feingold have of winning the Dem nomination for President? Answer none. Voting for the slightly lesser of two evils will not help the country. The corporations own the parties, both parties are populated at the top by people who view themselves as elite. If you think any of them really give a s**t about the average person then you'll get what you deserve.

    Re: It's Time For Democrats to Take a Stand Agains (none / 0) (#5)
    by john horse on Thu Sep 14, 2006 at 06:15:24 AM EST
    "From my 6 ½ years of captivity in Vietnam, I know what life in a foreign prison is like. To a large degree, I credit the Geneva Conventions for my survival ... This is one reason the United States has led the world in upholding treaties governing the status and care of enemy prisoners: because these standards also protect us ... We need absolute clarity that America will continue to set the gold standard in the treatment of prisoners in wartime." former POW Pete Peterson

    Re: It's Time For Democrats to Take a Stand Agains (none / 0) (#6)
    by cpinva on Thu Sep 14, 2006 at 06:15:24 AM EST
    JR - it doesn't matter what others do, supposedly, we, and by extension our military, hold ourselves to a higher standard. if we start using the same methods you claim are used by the "enemy", how are we different from them again? to advocate the use of barbaric methods of interrogation, merely because the "other guy" does, destroys our whole reason for being, because we just became the "other guy". "we have met the enemy, and he is us." pogo

    Re: It's Time For Democrats to Take a Stand Agains (none / 0) (#7)
    by scribe on Thu Sep 14, 2006 at 06:15:24 AM EST
    Robertson: Get a clue. Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions did not come into being until 1949, when it was immediately ratified by one of its biggest proponents, the United States. So, your "Japanese did it" falls flat that way. Second, the Japanese treatment of American PWs (both mishandling them, starving them, and trying them as war criminals for doing their military duties, such as dropping bombs from B-29s) was entirely consonant with then-contemporary Japanese law. In so many words, in torturing US prisoners, the Japanese government was acting totally within the limits of their 1940s-era laws, their functional equivalent of the Detainee Treatment Act. Similarly, the Nazi government's treatment of Soviet prisoners of war (as opposed to their grudging accomodation to the then-current 1929 and 1907 Geneva and Hague Conventions vis-a-vis US/British PWs*) made the Nazi treatment of Jews in concentration camps look positively kind. So, in reality, Negroponte, Bush, Cheney, and all the rest of their cabal are no different from the Japanese and Nazis And, FWIW, there was an overwrought, mid-war Hollywood propaganda pic which dealt with the Japanese trial of captured airmen from the 1942 Doolitle Raid. I forget the name, but it struck every note on how evil the Japs were for prosecuting soldiers and airmen for doing their military duty, showed them roughing up PWs, played up every racist stereotype, and so on. I think the hero got it with a sword at the end. It's been on TV any number of times; what do you think the likelihood there's a current-day version of it running around, with US folks in the Japanese roles, Muslims in the 'murcan roles, and Gitmo or elsewhere subbing for Tokyo jail? - - - * Within the last week or two, there was a series of articles and letters to the editor in the Times of London, re British PWs escaping from the German PW camps and particularly Stalag Luft III - the subject of the movie "The Great Escape". One of the articles noted the PWs were allowed to purchase things like wristwatches - which Rolex (being Swiss, neutral and therefore able to import to Germany) sold to them on promise of their paying for it after the war. One of the former PWs wrote in, noting he still wears his. And, this was under the more-restrictive, less kind, 1929 and 1907 Conventions. For treating prisoners whose military doctrine was more-or-less area-bombing cities at night, killing a lot of innocent civilians in the process. Compare that to being bound, wrapped in duct tape, gagged, masked, blinded with blacked-out goggles, ears plugged and then chained to the floor before being shipped across the seas to face kangaroo courts, and you might get an inkling of how far we've descended already under this administration. This bill is just their latest attempt to make their crimes legal.

    Re: It's Time For Democrats to Take a Stand Agains (none / 0) (#8)
    by HK on Thu Sep 14, 2006 at 06:15:24 AM EST
    I am appalled that there hasn't been a more widespread and vocal objection to these White House proposals to rewrite the Geneva Convention for its own convenience. The Administration clearly doesn't understand its importance and purpose. James Robertson writes:
    our treatment of captives won't have any impact on what the jihadists do. Which is not to say that we should drop to their level.
    So if you don't think we should drop to their level, what is your point exactly? TChris was quite clear when he wrote that if carried out, the proposal
    enhances the risk that American prisoners will be subjected to mistreatment
    It is a way of providing some sort of portection for captured troops. It is not a failsafe measure. However, apart from anything else, even if no other country adhered to the Geneva Convention, shouldn't the USA be setting the standard? Is doing the right thing and respecting human rights regardless of nationality not important?

    Re: It's Time For Democrats to Take a Stand Agains (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Sep 14, 2006 at 06:15:24 AM EST
    If there are no international agreements in place governing what can and cannot be done to prisoners taken during conflict, how would you ever have any form of legal recourse against the offenders when the dust settles? There will always be people who think they can get away with ignoring these agreements, however enacted, but without them we set absolutely no expectations, and I think that undermines any attempts to bring offenders to justice when the dust settles. And then there is the small matter of the Geneva Conventions which were incorporated into US law when they were ratified; of course, the US can always tell the world they no longer want to be party to the Geneva Conventions, but I guess that will have other consequences.

    Re: It's Time For Democrats to Take a Stand Agains (none / 0) (#12)
    by profmarcus on Thu Sep 14, 2006 at 08:13:29 AM EST
    our esteemed republican senate majority, with the possible exception of three (graham, mccain, and warner), are seemingly prepared to brush off our constitution right along with the geneva convention... and what do we get...?
    How many more times do we need to create legislation that's defective, that's going to confuse people, that's got not a snowball's chance in hell of passing Supreme Court muster?" said Graham, a military lawyer.
    so, what the hell is bushco trying to accomplish...?
    All these eleventh-hour redefinitions of torture are presidential attempts to "afford brutality the cloak of law," in the words of Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter. But increasingly, it seems clear that its real purpose is simply to brutalize the law.
    (thanks to susang at daily kos...) And, yes, I DO take it personally

    Re: It's Time For Democrats to Take a Stand Agains (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Sep 14, 2006 at 08:39:00 AM EST
    The difference between our "torture" and the enemies torture is clear, we cause discomfort and embarassment (on par w/ harsh fraternity hazing) and in more extreme cases fear of death and so on...whereas the enemy's version of torture is gouging eyes, mutulation, beheading etc...are you really so ignorant to the realities of the world we live in? The Geneva convention applies to soldiers of a state in unifor, not terrorists in civilian clothes that target civilians, too bad the Supreme Court didn't recognize that. In past wars anybody caught not in uniform could be shot on site, per Geneva Conventions...how are these terrorists any different? Also, you are missing one of the main ideas behind the geneva conventions and that is the idea of reciprocity..which in this case is none! You should spend more energy worrying about the defense of the country and our lives more so than the defense of those who live to kill you...unbelievable!

    Re: It's Time For Democrats to Take a Stand Agains (none / 0) (#14)
    by Sailor on Thu Sep 14, 2006 at 11:34:08 AM EST
    (on par w/ harsh fraternity hazing)
    you were in a sick fraternity if it allowed you to be beaten for days on end, near drowned, kept awake, forcibly standing, naked in a cold room while being dashed with cold water. Why not torture people? Because it's wrong! It's wrong morally, it's wrong religiously, it's unconstitutional, it's against international law and it's against the GenCons.

    Re: It's Time For Democrats to Take a Stand Agains (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Sep 14, 2006 at 11:48:12 AM EST
    I think we can all agree that pulling fingernails and putting electrodes on the 'nads constitutes "torture." I think we can also agree that no one in the Administration is advocating that US interrogators be allowed to inflict permanent physical injury or extreme physical pain on captured terrorists. Rather, the entire dispute is over conduct that falls far, far below that level but which nonetheless is more stressful than the type of interrogation that a criminal defendant in the US might be subjected to. Does good cop-bad cop interrogation constitute "torture?" How about lengthy interrogation? Playing ZZ Top 24/7? Threats of physical injury? Waterboarding? In my humble opinion, waterboarding is the only one of those that even comes close to the line. So let's have a debate about whether waterboarding ought to be permitted. On the one hand, it's very effective. On the other hand, it inflicts a very high degree of psychological fear (although no permanent injury or physical pain). Note that none of this applies to uniformed soldiers. They can only be asked name, rank and serial number and can't be subjected to interrogation of any kind. At least, that is what uniformed soldiers can expect so long as they are captured by the US or by another state that is party to the Geneva Convention. If one of our soldiers happens to be captured by the Taliban or al Qaeda or one of the so-called "insurgent" groups in Iraq, they only thing they can expect is to be beheaded after being tortured.

    Re: It's Time For Democrats to Take a Stand Agains (none / 0) (#15)
    by Andreas on Thu Sep 14, 2006 at 01:10:23 PM EST
    DBL wrote:
    I think we can also agree that no one in the Administration is advocating that US interrogators be allowed to inflict permanent physical injury or extreme physical pain on captured terrorists.
    I disagree. The Bush/Cheney-regime is organising such crimes.

    Re: It's Time For Democrats to Take a Stand Agains (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Sep 14, 2006 at 02:57:42 PM EST
    I was referring to the humiliating treatment of the Abu Gharib people,I don't recall them being physically tortured (truly tortured) or beaten, which was and still remains illegal under all conditions. My point is regarding high profile terrorists with potentially live saving information...I do not advocate what I perceive to be real torture...treatment resulting in permanent physcial damage, but what is wrong with making them extremely uncomfortable and scaring the hell out of them? Which is what this big fuss is about. Killing is wrong too, but it's accepted as the norm during times of warfare. Get my drift? Oh by the way, you can thank Pakistan's "persuasive" interrogation techniques for saving thousands of lives in the London plane terror plot. Sometimes there is a greater good, period.

    Re: It's Time For Democrats to Take a Stand Agains (none / 0) (#18)
    by Sailor on Thu Sep 14, 2006 at 04:20:47 PM EST
    I was referring to the humiliating treatment of the Abu Gharib people,I don't recall them being physically tortured
    Then your lack of recall is shaming:
    Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture. Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees. Threatening detainees with a loaded 9mm pistol. Pouring cold water on naked detainees. Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair. Raping male detainees. Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell. Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick. Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting and severely injuring a detainee. Urinating on detainees Jumping on detainee's leg (a limb already wounded by gunfire) with such force that it could not thereafter heal properly Continuing by pounding detainee's wounded leg with collapsible metal baton Pouring phosphoric acid on detainees Sodomization of detainees with a baton Sergeant Samuel Provance from Alpha Company 302nd Military Intelligence battalion, in interviews with several news agencies, reported the sexual abuse of a 16-year-old girl by two interrogators, as well as a 16-year-old son of an Iraqi general who was driven through the cold after he had been showered and who was then besmeared with mud in order to get his father to talk.[citation needed] He also pointed out several techniques used by interrogators that have been identified as being in violation of the Geneva Convention. He spoke to the media, even against direct orders, about what he knew about at the prison (largely from conversations and interactions with the interrogators). He explained that he did so because there was "definitely a cover-up" underway by the Army. He was administratively flagged and had his top secret clearance suspended in retaliation by the Army.[citation needed] In her video diary, a prison guard said that prisoners were shot for minor misbehavior, and claimed to have had venomous snakes bite prisoners, sometimes resulting in their deaths. By her own admission, that guard was "in trouble" for having thrown rocks at the detainees.[20] Hashem Muhsen, one of the naked men in the human pyramid photo, said they were also made to crawl around the floor naked and that U.S. soldiers rode them like donkeys. After being released in January 2004, Muhsen became an Iraqi police officer.[citation needed] It was discovered that one prisoner, Manadel al-Jamadi, died as a result of abuse, a death that was ruled a homicide by the military.
    no one in the Administration is advocating that US interrogators be allowed to inflict permanent physical injury or extreme physical pain on captured terrorists.
    Then you would be wrong.

    Re: It's Time For Democrats to Take a Stand Agains (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Sep 14, 2006 at 05:00:04 PM EST
    I was referring to the humiliating treatment of the Abu Gharib people,I don't recall them being physically tortured (truly tortured) or beaten, which was and still remains illegal under all conditions.
    another one with amnesia. There were inmates beaten to death, light bulbs shoved up their anus, etc. Physical torture was wide spread

    Re: It's Time For Democrats to Take a Stand Agains (none / 0) (#19)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Sep 14, 2006 at 07:25:12 PM EST
    I think we can also agree that no one in the Administration is advocating that US interrogators be allowed to inflict permanent physical injury or extreme physical pain on captured terrorists.
    We do not agree. Dozens of prisoners have died under interrogation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Anything you would not like done to YOU constitutes torture.
    The Geneva convention applies to soldiers of a state in unifor, not terrorists in civilian clothes that target civilians, too bad the Supreme Court didn't recognize that.
    Wrong. Read it again. The GC says you can't torture ANYONE. It's pretty cavalier of you to suggest that just because someone has been captured, he must be a terrorist and therefore fair game for torture.

    It's Time For Democrats to Take a Stand Against Torture | 19 comments (19 topical)