----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@mccmedia.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 3:50 AM
Subject: Re: Gulags
>
> The stance of the experts I cited seems to be all prisoners, POW or
> not, are entitled to the standard of care specified in the Geneva
> Conventions except for communications between governments regarding
> the prisoners.
Then it would seem that all AQ has to answer is "name rank and serial
number", right?
.
> > No carrot, no stick at all, is the way I read the Geneva Conventions on
> > POWs. Is that what you think should be the case?
> "Unpleasant results"... I am opposed to using torture in the name of
democracy.
> I am wondering if you are minimizing or are truly unaware of some of
> the things classified under "unpleasant results" which in places
> outside of Gitmo have included torturing people to death.
No, I'm not doing that. I'm trying to obtain first and understanding of
what has been going on, and then trying to form a reasonable opinion about
it. I don't think that when the Geneva convention talks about
unpleasantness that they were using a euphemism for torture. I took it as,
well, unpleasantness. For example, you could not interrupt the sleep of
people who aren't talking. You couldn't change their diet from a tasty one
to one that is nutritious, follows their dietary laws, but is rather
tasteless and bland. You couldn't impose solitary confinement for refusing
to talk. You couldn't shine lights in their cell.
Basically, it appears that prisoners should be as well treated as one's own
soldiers until the war is over. You can't even refuse them cigarettes as a
means of getting them to talk. That's what I'm referring to when I write of
unpleasantness.
The killing of prisoners who are not engaged in life threatening activities
(e.g. an armed prison riot) is not acceptable. Torturing prisoners is not
acceptable; particularly ones that are not likely to have information that
can save hundreds or thousands of lives. The actions depicted in the Time
report looks to be on the borderline to me. That's why I copied the
details of that and asked questions.
There is a wide range of possibilities for what has happened at Gitmo,
which strongly influences my understanding of Bush's approach to the
handling of prisoners. If the Time story gives a good feel for the limits
set by the Bush government for the treatment of prisoners that they
consider the most likely to provide critical information, then we can make
some conclusions. Worse treatment of less important prisoners(importance
measured in terms of
intelligence potential) would probably not be directly ordered. Instead,
one would
look to not providing proper oversight, clear guidelines, the proper
atmosphere, etc. as culprits in the worsening of the US treatment of
prisoners.
If this understanding is false, and the full range of torture techniques
are used at Gitmo, then things are different. One would have to assume
that Time magazine was given a record that ignored the instances of real
torture. But, one would also expect that there would be deaths at Gitmo
under very suspicious circumstances...as there were elsewhere. I think
that the data are vague and uncertain enough to be consistent with a range
of hypothesis, but I think that the majority of the data does support
something along what I outlined.
I realize that there are testimonials about horrid mistreatment of people
we have released. But, one has to take these with a grain of salt. A
person who stood up to torture by Americans is a hero. One who really had
nothing to admit, was a cooperative prisoner, got along OK with the MPs,
played soccer regularly, etc. is not quite as heroic. In short, just
because one should take the administration's claims with a grain of salt
doesn't mean that one swallows competing claims whole. It is possible for
more than one person to lie. :-)
> Bush&Co. had to make a decision how to treat those who attacked the
> US. They went along like the overage frat boys they are saying what
> they would like to have done to them and then got their lawyers to
> come up with reasons and ways they could ignore the military justice
> system and our prisoner system and use rogue agent CIA rules.
While that is certainly an emotionally satisfying explanation, I think a
cold examination of the facts show something a bit more subtle. One of the
problems that came out in the testimony of the 9-11 commission was the
uncertainty the CIA had as to whether they could kill Bin Laden if/when
they had them in their sights. A picture of the CIA as a risk avoiding
bureaucracy came out, in the testimony, as well as from other information.
One example of this is the fact that someone who has no contact with the
rest of the world has a far easier time getting high security clearances
than someone who has had extensive contact and experience. Yet, the latter
are far more useful for work in intelligence than the former. The Church
commission did a lot of good reigning in the excesses of the CIA. However,
the CIA that emerged did have some serious structural problems. What
seemed to be the unanimous opinion of the commission was that the CIA was a
very ineffective organization, very much tied up in red tape.
There is a very tempting way to solve this problem: they way Alexander
solved the problem of the Gordian knot. That I see as the best explanation
for the actions of Bush et. al. Get rid of lawyerly complications by a
getting understanding of the power of the Commander in Chief in wartime.
End worries about, for example, Spanish judges who might indict American
soldiers for reasonable acts in wartime, by getting a ruling that they are
protected by following the legal orders of the Commander in Chief. Keep
people from worried that, if they do what is needed to protect the US, such
as interdicting dangerous nationals on the lam and returning them to their
own countries for prosecution and punishment, that they will be subjected
to all sorts of lawsuits by people more worried about dotting "i"s and
crossing "t"s in procedures than defending the US against terrorists. Make
sure the troops know that, in the war on terror, as long as the lawfully
obey orders, they will be protected by the commander in chief.
I think you could guess that I don't think this is the best way to handle
the problem; indeed I've long said that Bush et. al. have been doing a very
poor job, but it has some important differences from "frat boys gone wild."
One of them is that it appears that the administration did show
self-constraint in their actions. If the Time story is accurate, then one
gets a picture of a president who wants a fairly free hand in dealing with
terrorists, but does not simply run wild because he thinks he has it.
Rather, a fairly limited number (10 or so) are subjected to what the
administration considers high stress questioning, using techniques that
they think are acceptable, and that fall short of torture.
So, going way back to the original point, I don't see how Gitmo is one of
the most significant risks to our liberty today, let alone in the history
of the nation.
>GBay, a location under our control but not part of any state, was one way.
>In a time of crisis the American people will go along with what the Prez
> wants. As months and years go by they will start to evaluate his
> wisdom and judgment or lack of it.
That is true, but hyperbola does not help the process along. I think a
very convincing, almost overwhelming case could be made for the
incompetence of this administration. From having inexperienced
20-something year olds run the Iraq economy for about a year, to the
understaffed and undersupervised prison system, to the myopic focus on what
they "knew to be true" apart from the evidence, they seem to approach
criminal incompetence in their foreign policy. Our own neo-con rated Bush
at D-, for goodness sakes. But, over the top accusations switches the
focus from what the administration has failed at to discussions of things
they probably have not done. Most of the public tunes out the messenger at
this point. Conspiracy theories, like Michael Moore's or David's might get
traction with the faithful, but it turns off most of the electorate. It
also angers the political opponents, who (reasonably enough) take it
personally, and the chances of reasonable discourse are decreased.
> I think you are reaching when you say the Geneva Convention says no
> carrots and while beatings ("sticks") don't seem acceptable other
> forms of disapproval may be.
What stood out was unpleasant results for not answering questions. It
appears to me that the Geneva convention both codifies and is the source
for the "name rank and serial number" that we've all seen in movies.
Basically, if one captures the soldiers from the other side, one is not
suppose to pressure them into betraying their country.
That may be an unreasonably strict interpretation, but it is a straight
interpretation of "unpleasant." Perhaps this had a technical meaning that
I didn't get; that is possible.
> I don't think it is the only think we need to do but improving US
> foreign policy would be one of the best things we could do.
Well, simply having a more competent administration couldn't hurt. But,
lets pull Bush out of it for a bit. Let's go back to the difficulties
Clinton had fighting AQ. Yes, we didn't have a spectacular attack on 2000,
but the criminal model for fighting AQ didn't work well with the attack on
the Cole, and the embassy bombings. The WTC did get convictions, but at a
price....AQ learned a lot about the counter-terrorism
methods of the US and was able to circumvent them.
Bush has a clearly stated vision. The Democrats do not. I have
difficulties with the substance of his vision, apart from his almost
criminal clumsiness in carrying it out. But, the Democrats do not offer a
real alternate vision. The far left does, but it doesn't appeal to me, and
it certainly doesn't appeal to most voters. The only place that I've found
anything close a counter vision, so far, is in Thomas Freeman's political
columns. I've been pointed to other thinkers who have clearly articulated
other viewpoints on a variety of issues (such as human rights and
terrorism), but these tend to be on slightly narrower topics.
I'll end this now, without going into a discussion of how a workable,
clearly articulated counter-vision can be developed. But, it would make
for an interesting thread...albeit one that would require a bit of work.
Dan M.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
