November 12, 2004
-
Remember way back during the election (o, how long ago that seems..) when you heard the rhetoric about how re-electing Bush would be the same as signaling the world that we approve of Abu Ghraib? Did you maybe think it was over-the-top?
Well, it wasn't. The abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib 'detention centers' finds its origin in a letter written by the president's personal lawyer. In it, the lawyer says, on behalf of the president, that elements of the Geneva convention on treatment of prisoners was 'quaint.' That is: The de-facto minimal standard for the treatment of prisoners is considered quaint and outdated by the administration. This means that whoever we're at war with should not expect this minimal standard to be applied. Which also means that we, as Americans, should not anticipate that other nations should hold themselves to that standard in their treatment of our captured soldiers.
There's an interesting legal distinction between 'prisoner of war' and 'unlawful combatant,' but this lawyer also argued that the president is the only one who can, with any authority, decide who's a prisoner and who's an unlawful or enemy combatant. So the president alone gets to decide who's a prisoner, and thus subject to Geneva convention rules, and who isn't. This led, in no small part, to the abuses at Abu Ghraib, since it became administration policy to treat Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib as unlawful combatants, just like those imprisoned at Guantanamo.
Now, a re-elected Bush wouldn't necessarily provide an endorsement of Abu Ghraib, or the policy stance which made the abuses there possible. But the promotion of that lawyer to be the Attorney General of the US of A would, wouldn't it? And guess what has just happened...
Comments (8)
yes...you are correct...
absolutely true
Desperate, isn't it?
To be clear, these rules regarding enemy combatants only apply to terrorists, especially those without a country.
The whole point of Geneva, as you pointed it out, is that we will follow a certain set of rules regarding treatment of prisoners so that when our soldiers our captured, theur rights will be respected in the same manner. The terrorists made it clear long ago that all manner of torture tactics would be applied to our soldiers, and even civilians.
This doesn't mean we should stoop to their level, but it does mean we can take some shortcuts. It also doesn't mean that if for whatever reason we went to war with Russia, a country that has actually, you know, signed the conventions, we wouldn't follow them.
Actually, libby, the terrorists made no such thing clear at all. They don't want to take prisoners in the first place. Terrorism doesn't take prisoners; it escalates fear and uncertainty.
The point of all this is that the Bush administration has made itself out to be as brutal and malevolent as Bin Laden said he would be. By making these arguments about 'enemy combatants' and then nominating Gonzalez to be the US' top cop, he has completely played into Bin Laden's game.
There's a larger issue here than simply how harshly we want to deal with terrorists. Everyone wants to deal harshly with terrorists; that's exactly how terrorism works. Terrorists make a violent stance in hopes of antagonizing their opponents into being radicalized.
And Bush foolishly plays that game.
Not to mentions, how many hostage beheadings took place before the revelation of Abu Ghraib? I'll give you one for free:Daniel Pearl.
Name another...
What goes around certainly DOES come around...
Hey, but at least the neo-con evangelical Ashcroft is gone! Right? Right?
Hah, get it: right? Oy.
I didn't know that about Gonzales. I'm trying to remember now, something Rumsfeld said that clearly indicated he, too, had a hand in Abu Ghraib. Something about how we might consider using dogs in interrogation techniques, and about how standing for 8 hours straight isn't hard, because he stands all day at his standing desk... But I won't try to remember.
looooovely
Comments are closed.