As a follow-up to the last post let’s take a look at the ACLU’s take on the MCA. Abject_Disappointment suggested I do so, and it was worthwhile. Here’s their list of items that should have been added to the MCA:
- the President will have no authority to authorize any of the acts prohibited by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and the Army Field Manual on Interrogations, which reinforces the Common Article 3 prohibitions;
- the courts are not stripped of their historical and constitutional role as a check on the Executive Branch, in ensuring that the protections of the Constitution and Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions are enforced;
- government officials who authorized or ordered illegal acts of torture and abuse will not receive retroactive immunity;
- no one can be convicted on the basis of evidence that was literally beaten out of a witness or obtained through other abuse by either the federal government or by countries such as Syria, Jordan, or Egypt that tortured and abused persons sent to them by the federal government;
- at minimum, those acts which violate the McCain anti-torture amendment remain criminal acts under the War Crimes Act.
I can’t argue with adding in those protections.
Should have been added. Should have. As in, they were NOT.
Mr. Olberman, one of the few Main Stream Journalists in the supposed
“Left Wing Media” has done numerous recent talking points on the subject.
He is one of the few brave Americans who has the moral clarity to stand
up and say what this is. As you choose to only pick out and comment
regarding the ACLU’s take on the MCA, here is a further counter-point
to your ascertation that nothing is wrong with the MCA.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8BqvJO5t4k : Death of Habeas Corpus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPICFNHeDBI : You’re Words are Lies Sir
-Abject.
I just have a hard time listening to the political views of a former ESPN anchor who’s known for such catch phrases as “premature jucularity”. But aside from that…
The Geneva Convention doesn’t apply in the case of terrorism. It specificly protects combatants who fullfill the following provisions:
(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.
What does the al qaeda uniforms (or a “sign” for that matter) look like again? Are they “openly” carrying arms around our country?
So, Jason, it is perfectly alright in every sense of the word to torture,
dehumanize, degrade, and summary execute any Prisoner captured in the War
on Terror because the Geneva Convention does not apply? According to your
logic, you say Yes. I remember a time, and it wasn’t that long ago, when
an American President made a comment about the United States of America being
a shining City on a Hill. The actions that you support certainly sound like
the actions of anything but that shining City on a Hill. Where is our Moral
Clarity? Where is our obligation to treat Human beings with respect?
In regards to your second query, no they are not openly carrying weapons, as
far as I know, around in our country. Then again, neither were the Viet Cong,
or the Chinese/North Koreans, or the Germans, or the Japanese, or the
Austrian/Hungarian Empire, or the Spanish, or the Pirates off the Coast of
Tripoli. In fact, other than Pancho Villa, and the British in 1812, the list
of armed enemies of this country on our soul is pretty damn short.
As far as the Uniform issue goes, Non-Organized, i.e. Fifth Column, Soldiers
have been granted, assuming they are not spies, standard Geneva Convention
treatment in every major conflict going all the way back to the Napoleonic wars.
Exceptions do exist, but they are EXCEPTIONS and not the rule. You can go by
the letter of the law, or you can actually turn to History and see that the
letter of the law usually applies to anyone participating in an armed conflict.
-Abject.
Also, Jason, it is a pleasure to see that the individual deliverying the message is more important than the message itself in regards to your comments directed at Mr. Olberman’s remarks. Might I remind you, sir, that the Founders of this country, those who wrote the documents that established this nation, did not all come from haughty backgrounds, and some, merely, were swept into
the positions that fate had destined for them.
-Abject.
Abject,
How do YOU think we should handle the war on terror? How does an (arguably) civilized nation go about fighting an enemy that is CLEARLY NOT PLAYING BY THE RULES? The same rules that you hold in such high regard. The same rules that were ignored for the thousands on September 11th, 2001. The same rules that WE are supposed to respect and yet the enemy has complete disregard for. What do you suggest? Should we capture them and set them up with a $100,000 condo to spend the rest of their days in?
What’s the point in capturing enemies? You cannot garner information from them, outside of name, rank, and serial number – which the name is “confusing” in this case (muslim name, or legal name – which could be different). Are there official ranks in a terrorist organization? Do they have anything remotely resembling a serial number? So, what would be the point? I say then, just shoot them. No point in taking enemy prisoners.
But, alas, that’s an emotional response. It is not the rational (moral) thing to do, nor would I condone such treatment as torture (no where in my original message did I say that I think we should openly torture captured individuals). My point was, you cannot point to the Geneva Convention and say the MCA violates that, because it doesn’t even apply.
And you are correct, as you point out, there are very few times when the Geneva Convention rules on prisoner treatment have technically applied. Also, the 3rd Geneva Convention (which is generally the one that people are referring to when speaking of “the Geneva Convention”) was in 1949. The first one was in 1864 and covered the treatment of battlefield casualties and was partially responsible for the establishment of the red cross. The second convention was in 1906 and extended the first one to include casualties at sea. Thus I fail to see how any mention of the Geneva Convention as it relates to treatment of prisoners to anything prior to the end of WWII.
You say “turn to history”…When in “history” have we fought an enemy such as al-qaeda? Refresh my memory. In what war did the enemy “combatant” hijack airliners and slam them into CIVILIAN buildings, puposefully killing CIVILIANS? Terrorism, while not a new concept, has certainly racheted up recently and warrants some serious consideration from our military.
So I ask, what would YOU suggest?
And you’re right, WHO is crafting and delivering the message isn’t as important as WHAT it is … “I have a dream” would have been just as effective if Larry Flynt delivered it …
First, Jason, you are entirely mistaken in your verbage. There is no “War on Terror” as no declaration of war has ever been made by Congress. There is no difference between this “War on Terror” and the “War on Drugs,” and every day we are faced with examples of how the latter has failed. You ask how I think we should handle it? Well, that is a simple answer. We handle it by looking at the source of the problem, and solving it. Not invading countries that had nothing to do with the event that lead us into this whole cabal (9/11), and certainly not by torturing and raising the ire of the supposed population we are fighting against. Yes, I do hold these rules in high regard … as should every American. These rules are a staple by which we should not only treat prisoners, but expect our own POWs to be treated by. If we do not act by them, we should not expect such behavior from those fighting against us. You say they are not playing by the rules? I say they are using the tools at their disposal to win the conflict in Iraq and Afgahnistan that we intiated. You say they violated the rules on 9/11? I ask you who issued the Stand Down Order to NORAD that day, who was in control of the War Game that was being run, and how exactly did WTC 7 go down?
Your final statement of the first paragraph is asine and you should be embarassed for addressing the issue in that manner. I am, by no means, suggesting we treat POWs in the “War on Terror” the same way we treat former heads of State such as Maneul Noreiga (Spelling?) or corrupt Congressmen that have been caught and found guilty, that would just be wrong. Hell, for that matter, I’m not even suggesting we throw them in prison and then a few years later we pardon them, despite the war crime they were found guilty for due to their benefit to our country (See: Operation Paperclip). I’m simply suggesting we treat them as POWs, despite the fact that no declaration of War exists. WE have quite the history of doing this, Post-WW2.
Just shoot them you say, as they have no information to give. Congratulations, you have now admitted to a complete lack of empathy towards Human Life. Given that stance, there isn’t a whole lot I can say that will give you any answer you could/would be able to understand.
You make excellent points, but I have to ask, if you are correct, then why did we abide by the same conditions stated in the 3rd Geneva Convention during every major conflict in the 20th Century pre-1949? Could it be, perhaps, that the “gentlemen’s agreement” was still in effect from the 19th Century? I know it is hard to believe, given our current leadership, but there was a time when Leaders valued Human Life, Dignity, and celebrated Humanity … even some of the worst monsters in History.
I would Love to write more, however my plane is about to leave. I look forward to a response.
-Abject.