US petition

[j2k4]

It would appear from your post, or at least the part you have emboldened, that the treaty relates to domestic criminals, but not to soldiers. I say this because domestic criminals are more likely to be captured on "home soil" whereas soldiers are just as likely to be captured on "foreign soil".

I find it frankly stunning that your country would include such a caveat when ratifying the treaty. However then I think on.

Does this caveat apply to everyone, was it added to the treaty, or more likely did your country only ratify this amended version for themselves.

If no-one else has the same caveat, then they are obliged to follow the rules of the treaty, when they capture your soldiers then they cannot torture them. However if the US captures foreign soldiers and keeps them on foreign soil, then the treaty is abandoned.

In essence, if it's a US citizen, no torture. If the prisoner is held in the US, no torture. If it's a foreign citizen, held elsewhere than in the US, torture is OK

Or do I misunderstand.

Why did you put them in Guantanamo btw

After 9/11, however, the Bush administration took the view that the prohibition on "cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment" simply does not apply to foreign detainees held outside the United States. It pointed to the fact that when Congress ratified the treaty, it stated its understanding that "cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment" comprised conduct that would violate the United States Constitution—whose Fifth Amendment prohibits any coercion that "shocks the conscience" in interrogations. Claiming that the U.S. Constitution does not extend to foreigners overseas, the administration reasoned that the treaty prohibition on "cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment" is similarly limited.

That is about as disingenuous as the extract you used to justify the legal basis for the torture. It's shameful, if I read it correctly.

http://www.slate.com/id/2130028/#ContinueArticle

Let's not get sidetracked-I emboldened that section as relevant; the rest is there for context, and to avoid any accusations of selectivity.

I'm justifying nothing, merely pointing out that our Congress included that language in 1994 as a condition of ratification, for which purpose I cannot claim to know.

I find it interesting (for reasons you'd not find as captivating) that this occurred during the Clinton administration, but I looked for it out of a sense of curiouslty about my own remembrance and to provide you with the documentation of this caveat you weren't aware of, and which I couldn't properly elucidate owing to my fuzzy memory.

Why McCain has left the same loophole in his proposal would be interesting to know also, but that is unlikely to be highlighted by our media; they favor him as a "maverick".

This is as opposed to a "cowboy" (Bush); apparently "mavericks " are not possessed of that annoying "swagger".

[Busyman]

Your's however is the country who, at the highest level, is saying that it is OK for them to use torture. In spite of still being party to a treaty which prohibits it.

JP-I found something which speaks directly to your point, and recalls more clearly a vague memory of my own.

I have emboldened the most relevant sections...



Rich Lowry 11/15/05

American Grandstand
This one’s dangerous.

When legislation passes in the Senate by an overwhelming 90-9 vote, it is often a sign that it is either meaningless fluff or a bad idea. The McCain "anti-torture" amendment, which passed by such a wide margin in an initial test of strength and which will be up for debate again soon, is both — an instance of congressional grandstanding that also might prove harmful.

One part of the amendment bans "cruel, inhumane and degrading" treatment. John McCain himself says that if the amendment's prohibition against such treatment "doesn't sound new, that's because it's not — the prohibition has been a longstanding principle in both law and policy in the United States." Ah. So why, then, is the McCain amendment necessary?

According to McCain, it is necessary because the U.S. maintains that the prohibition against cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment, which it agreed to in the Convention Against Torture, doesn't apply to foreigners held overseas. Indeed, Congress was careful to include this caveat when it ratified the convention in 1994. As legal analyst Andy McCarthy notes, instead of closing this loophole, the McCain amendment appears to perpetuate it by repeating the same language Congress used to carve it out in 1994. This is legislative sleight of hand in the cause of moralistic self-congratulation.

The other part of the amendment gives the Army Field Manual and its standard for interrogations the force of law. This is where the amendment will have bite. In theory, the manual could be rewritten to allow explicitly for the kind of stress techniques — keeping detainees awake for long periods, putting them in uncomfortable positions, etc. — that have been controversial since 9/11. The existing manual frowns on these methods, and a new version currently being formulated is likely to be even more restrictive, although it will probably leave key questions vague.

The McCain amendment, however, will make any leeway in the manual moot. Because it creates no specific safe harbor for stress techniques, has no definition of what is cruel and inhumane and what isn't, and has been accompanied by a fusillade of congressional rhetoric against Bush administration interrogation policy, it will be interpreted as banning any technique overseas that we wouldn't use with criminal suspects in the U.S. This is an unreasonable standard, and one that McCain and his backers apparently don't have the gumption to state and defend openly.

A distinction has to be made between wanton abuses like those in Abu Ghraib and tightly controlled interrogations of top-level al Qaeda captives. Yes, prisoners should be treated humanely, and it will be a permanent blot on the administration's record that it didn't better control how prisoners were being treated in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But there are cases when tough techniques are probably justified. When al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaida, a planner of 9/11, was caught in Pakistan, he had been shot in the groin. Painkillers were administered selectively as an interrogation tactic. He coughed up information that led to the capture of other al Qaeda members. At Guantanamo Bay, Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld approved — then eventually revoked — 16 aggressive techniques for Mohammed al-Qahtani, the 20th hijacker in the 9/11 plot. They involved isolating him, making him stand for long periods and playing on his phobias. They might have helped pressure him into talking.

Would McCain supporters not have been so harsh to Zubaida? Never made al-Qahtani stand? And do they want to make it illegal for U.S. interrogators ever again to make the choices they did in these two cases? It now seems obvious the pendulum swung too far toward tough treatment of our prisoners after 9/11, but that doesn't mean it should swing all the way in the other direction and outlaw techniques that are short of torture, but useful in unraveling what is an ongoing conspiracy to murder Americans.

The interrogation debate, above all, needs adult supervision. It hasn't gotten enough of it from the Bush administration, and it looks as though it won't get any from a preening Congress either.

Well damn....
That pretty much clarified a number of questions I had (and weirdly enough has a number of concerns that I had). Freaky.

Good post!!!

[JPaul]

I'm justifying nothing, merely pointing out that our Congress included that language in 1994 as a condition of ratification, for which purpose I cannot claim to know.

Bet you can give a good guess, but.

Unless of course so much spinning makes one too dizzy to interpret the obvious.

Did you feel even remotely embarrased when you hit the "Submit Reply" button. One can only hope so.

[hobbes]

I went out to my car yesterday and it was covered in bird shit.

I got my shotgun and prepared to kill every bird in the neighborhood.

Ken, my neighbor, stopped me and told me that the birds were part of an ecosystem, and although killing all the birds would leave our cars clean, we would upset natures' balance.

"Don't you see son, the end of clean cars does not justify the means."

"By the way, where were you going?"

"I'm going to get a flu shot".

"Really, in Vietnam alone they have killed over 150,000 ducks because of this flu".

"Were they infected?"

"A few, to be sure, but all we're killed, just in case. The end, no human pandemic, justifies the means."

"Well in one case you say it does not and in the other you say it does, how can I tell?"

"I guess it boils down to what your conscience allows. Are you being selfish or are you doing an ugly thing which you may not like but understand needs to be done."

"Can we kill humans who are suspected to have an infection?"

"No, we can violate their human rights and quarantine them ( Ends justify the means), but they have souls which need to be respected"

"what is a soul, where is mine?"

"One cannot see nor detect a soul, you just must have faith that it is there. This is what makes us unique from other animals."

"Well, how do you know it is actually there?"

"The Bible tells us"

"Who wrote the Bible?"

"Men, but inspired by God"

"How do you know this?"

"Faith"

"Seems that rather than accepting an absolute philsophy that the ends don't justify the means you only make the circumstance in which humans are involved immutable. This based on some man-made book by some God you arbitrarily believe in. You don't seem like a man of principle, but a man who justifies by convenience. People, no. Animals, yes.
"Not always, the are unique exceptions"

"You mean like when to torture prisoners?"

"Well, I guess so. Certain people have information that can turn a conflict around."

"I read on the interweb that torture does not work."

"Does not work? Then why the hell would they use it? Are you saying that people who do are just Sadists looking for a thrill? Listen, son, the Abu Grabass thing is just a politicians game, all that was done there was already illegal. Hell the UK boys joined in, too. Both parties are going to be punished.
Obviously torture works in selected situations or else no one would use it."

"Well when should we be able to torture?"

"Whenever the information you can gain is enough to assure your conscience that it was the right thing to do. It is a judgemnet call.

"Besides, do you recall Clinton? He got a few blowjobs and we had to deal with that saga for years. A major "who cares" politicians story. If you legislate "torture" in a very specific and clearly defined way, the actual accusation of torture will pale in comparison to the the specious accusations of such. It will become just another political tool. Just like there is a gray in which torture may be justifiable or not, there is a gray area regarding what is torture and what is not.

Just like the Arabic countries unilaterally approve any anti-Israel proposition, there will be those who will constantly harass the US based on their agendas.
It is best to be call shots as you see fit, rather than be externally judged. Such agreements benefit small countries who cannot stand on their own, and not for countries who can call the shots with little effective disincentive. "

[j2k4]

I'm justifying nothing, merely pointing out that our Congress included that language in 1994 as a condition of ratification, for which purpose I cannot claim to know.

Bet you can give a good guess, but.

Unless of course so much spinning makes one too dizzy to interpret the obvious.

Did you feel even remotely embarrased when you hit the "Submit Reply" button. One can only hope so.

Why?

I would not have signed the treaty, much less inserted the caveat.

I would not attempt to obscure my intent by signing "in good faith", then undercutting any moral advantage by stooping to such a tactic.

You may think me crass for denouncing Kyoto, too, but I wouldn't have signed, as Clinton did, then fail to provide the political stewardship to force ratification in my Congress (which ratification would not have succeeded, in any case); his show of support for Kyoto was for no purpose whatsoever apart from gathering whatever political capital accrued to himself alone.

For such acumen he was applauded internationally as a visionary.

Such attitudes and tactics are cheap, and, in the specific case of Kyoto, Clinton's benefit was threefold: He is remembered as (1) the American President who "cared" about the environment, (2) his legacy does not suffer for Kyoto having actually been ratified, because he didn't believe in it to begin with, and (3) he knew his successor (in the case of Gore) would see that it wasn't ratified either, or (in the case of a Republican-Bush) would disavow it and be seen by the world as indifferent to the environment at best.

Let me pose a question, a la Hobbes:

If it were known the U.S. possessed a proprietary concoction that would induce any detainee to purge himself of every last detail of intelligence to which he was privy, and the unilateral use of this substance was so effective as to allow the total and indiscriminate extermination of all terrorists (with no collateral damage) by the U.S. in, say, two years, would you look upon this as a favorable development?

[JPaul]

It is best to be call shots as you see fit, rather than be externally judged. Such agreements benefit small countries who cannot stand on their own, and not for countries who can call the shots with little effective disincentive.

So you have moved from "the end justifies the means" to "might is right".

Torture is still wrong, in spite of any long winded cliché you feel can justify it.

[JPaul]

Bet you can give a good guess, but.

Unless of course so much spinning makes one too dizzy to interpret the obvious.

Did you feel even remotely embarrased when you hit the "Submit Reply" button. One can only hope so.

Why?

I would not have signed the treaty, much less inserted the caveat.

I would not attempt to obscure my intent by signing "in good faith", then undercutting any moral advantage by stooping to such a tactic.

You may think me crass for denouncing Kyoto, too, but I wouldn't have signed, as Clinton did, then fail to provide the political stewardship to force ratification in my Congress (which ratification would not have succeeded, in any case); his show of support for Kyoto was for no purpose whatsoever apart from gathering whatever political capital accrued to himself alone.

For such acumen he was applauded internationally as a visionary.

Such attitudes and tactics are cheap, and, in the specific case of Kyoto, Clinton's benefit was threefold: He is remembered as (1) the American President who "cared" about the environment, (2) his legacy does not suffer for Kyoto having actually been ratified, because he didn't believe in it to begin with, and (3) he knew his successor (in the case of Gore) would see that it wasn't ratified either, or (in the case of a Republican-Bush) would disavow it and be seen by the world as indifferent to the environment at best.

Let me pose a question, a la Hobbes:


If it were known the U.S. possessed a proprietary concoction that would induce any detainee to purge himself of every last detail of intelligence to which he was privy, and the unilateral use of this substance was so effective as to allow the total and indiscriminate extermination of all terrorists (with no collateral damage) by the U.S. in, say, two years, would you look upon this as a favorable development?

What a fascinating post, the bulk of which has nothing to do with the issue.

Did I mention that torture was immoral. I thought you should know that, and possibly reflect on the fact that it is totally opposed to any possible interpretation of the Christian ethic.

[j2k4]

Did I mention that torture was immoral. I thought you should know that, and possibly reflect on the fact that it is totally opposed to any possible interpretation of the Christian ethic.

Many things in and around this issue (torture, yes?) can be argued as immoral, including the war itself, terrorism, slashing of throats, I.E.D.s...

Odd that, as our government is precluded from any such by steely enforcement of the peculiar separation of church and state, that we decide Christian ethics are the basis of an enlightened (and, in all other considerations and circumstances, secular) document of "international authorship.

Better, perhaps, that you say something on the order of "It just ain't right."

Are we are to denounce such immorality at every turn, or reserving our umbrage solely for the U.S.?

[Busyman]

Did I mention that torture was immoral. I thought you should know that, and possibly reflect on the fact that it is totally opposed to any possible interpretation of the Christian ethic.

Many things in and around this issue (torture, yes?) can be argued as immoral, including the war itself, terrorism, slashing of throats, I.E.D.s...
....punching someone, kicking someone, using harsh language...

Odd that, as our government is precluded from any such by steely enforcement of the peculiar separation of church and state, that we decide Christian ethics are the basis of an enlightened (and, in all other considerations and circumstances, secular) document of "international authorship.

Better, perhaps, that you say something on the order of "It just ain't right."

Are we are to denounce such immorality at every turn, or reserving our umbrage solely for the U.S.?

You took the words right outta my mouth. Wtf is this..."it's immoral" crap?

JP needs to vote to disband his military then.

[hobbes]

It is best to be call shots as you see fit, rather than be externally judged. Such agreements benefit small countries who cannot stand on their own, and not for countries who can call the shots with little effective disincentive.

So you have moved from "the end justifies the means" to "might is right".

Torture is still wrong, in spite of any long winded cliché you feel can justify it.

The "might is right" quip is specious, but you know that. Are you a matador at all, waving a red cape around as a distraction.

You think torture is wrong, which does not make it wrong.

You say the ends don't justify the means, but obviously medical research shows us that we do it anyway and the Earth is a safer, healthier and more secure place for it.

In order to perform research on animals one must submit a proposal and agree to provide certain standards of treatment, a committee then uses their judgement in providing approval or denial.

I use examples to illustrate my point. You simply repeat that torture is wrong and the ends don't justify the means as if simple repetition will make them true.

Reminds me of that old Catholic slogan, "1 billion people can't be wrong!". As if sheer numbers could create reality.

But isn't the whole torture thing a bit of a non-issue JP. After all, "Thou shall not kill" would really preclude you from sanctioning any war under any circumstance or any justification.

People talk a good game, but when reality slaps you in the face, the animal tends to answer.