For all his talk that enemy combatant detainees are treated humainly even though the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to them, people still don't believe the Bush doesn't allow torture. And here's a reason why. John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) proposed an amendment to a military spending bill. The bill is short and says just a few seemingly non-controversial things. First US forces can't use any "treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation". See not changing our rules, just making it clear. Second, it says "No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment." Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as 28 other retired senior military officers, endorsed the amendment. Sounds like a good thing.
I don't have a link to the amendment but type "S11062" in the search box on this page in Thomas. Then click on the link to S11062 which is a page number in the Congressional Record. There you can read the text of the amendment and what McCain said when introducing it. It's worth the read.
When introducing the amendment McCain said: "Several weeks ago, I received a letter from CPT Ian Fishback, a member of the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, and a veteran of combat in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a West Point graduate. Over 17 months, he struggled to get answers from his chain of command to a basic question: What standards apply to the treatment of enemy detainees? But he found no answers." How absurd is that? Well it gets worse.
The Senate passed the amendment 90-9 and the whole bill passed the Senate. Now it goes to the House and if they pass it, off to the White House for the President to sign. Now this amendment was to a $450 billion dollar miltary funding bill, pretty important stuff, but it seems the president is so opposed to the amendment that since July he's had Cheney working at making sure it didn't get inserted. Well Cheney failed.
When asked about it on Oct 5th, Scott McClellan refered reporters to a statement of administration policy which I think means this one which says on page 3: "If legislation is presented that would restrict the President's authority to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack and bring terrorists to justice, the President's senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill." When further asked "will the President veto Senator McCain's legislation?" McClellan replied "if it's presented, then there would be a recommendation of a veto, I believe."
You can read all about this at WikiNews and the Washington Post.
So please, someone explain to me how concluding that the President supports torture is unjustified?
13 comments:
How is this different from many cases from the past when logic of justice has been twisted in order to justify US policy, for example, supporting one despotic regime, like Saddam, against an enemy? Same here it is "protecting Americans and bringing terrorists to justice". I see nothing new here as far as moral approach is concerned.
Our support for Saddam was 3 or 4 presidents ago, I don't blame W. for it. While in hindsight it might have been bad a decision there were at the time various ways of justifying the decision which were at least plausible. E.g., "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", "the lesser of two evils", and "fix one problem at a time". On the other hand, there's the "moral high ground". And many other possibilities. Throughout history, many good things have been twisted with bad results (sometimes with good intentions sometimes bad), religion comes to mind. Sometimes it has a good result, often not.
There are many who would say General Musharraf is not to be trusted, yet he's been helpful in overthrowing the Taliban and tracking down terrorists, yet it's widely believed bin Laden has been hiding safely in Pakistan. Are we better of working with Musharraf or refusing to work with someone who came to power via a Coup? The questions don't always have easy answers.
I think the war in Afgahnistan was justified. I blame Bush for lying about reasons to go to war in Iraq. And I blame Bush for supporting a policy of torture. Regardless of a moral judgement on whether torture of enemy combatants is justified (and I don't think it is), it's clearly contrary to international treaties we've signed. I believe for a president to violate such treaties is an impeachable offense.
Well, borrowing the same nuanced approach from the start of your previous comment... Where is the proof that the President is violating those treaties? Or supporting torture, for that matter? Is he, by merely refusing to sign the bill, guilty of those things (as you stated) or is he simply guided by more nuanced view of things and/or refusal to endorse legislation that will make it harder to fight the "evildoers"?
Dealing with corrupt regimes in accomplishing mutual goals does seem different from torturing enemy combatants. Many immoral actions are not illegal, only illegal actions are illegal. Dealing with Saddam in the past in helping to weaken Iran while morally questionable, wasn't AFAIK illegal. Iran-Contra, while morally questionable was in fact illegal in how the funds were reassigned. Dealing with Musharraf, morally questionable, not illegal. Torturing people? Illegal (and morally wrong).
I don't know he violated the treaty. And the administrations statement of policy is careful to word things as his staff will recommend a veto. That's a difference from him veto'ing it (which he hasn't yet) and even that would be different from him authorizing torture. Then again, the photos from Abu Grahib that were released and the statements that far worse was done and also at other sites, as well as starting to understand the nuances of public statements, leads me to believe it's his administration's policy. And from reports, rendition certainly is. The nice thing about impeachment, it's just an accusation, the hearings then follow to find the facts.
What's the other side of your argument? Morally wrong things have been done before, so they can continue?
Let me try to explain my point better. Many things in US (as well as other countries') history, including very recent, no matter how immoral they were, were attempted to be justified by gained benefit (Saddam, Musharraf, etc... but not Castro - cigars are not yet a stratigic resource).
So, when it comes to legality/immorality issue... suppose Bush lawyers found some loophole in the torture legislation which made it *legal*. (I believe they did in the case of Gunatanamo), or redefined the torture, for that matter. Would it then be ok? I do not think you would agree...
My point is that as long as the moral rules driving US policy remain subservient to the achieved benefit (with all the legalistic backing) the practice of torture (as means to achieve a goal) is to be expected. It will not go away even if W is impeached and removed from office. The torture (or some other action of a kind) will take a new form under some other leader and under some other circumstaces.
The problem with moral rules is that people disagree on them. Law are supposed to be clearer (though often aren't), but they are a much stronger thing to base a government on. Abortion is a good example. I'm pro-choice but the pro-life side is a legitimate position because it's a difficult moral question. Is torturing a captured soldier morally right? Again people can (and do) disagree on that and those views have changed over the centuries. But today in the US abortion is legal and torture is not.
Trying to place "moral rules" above "legalistic backing" is a slippery slope. Sure the country was founded on "inalienable rights" in the Declaration of Independence. And 100 years later we said the South couldn't secede from the nation as the colonies had done from Britain. The concept of "higher laws" was used on both sides of the slavery debate.
Who in your model chooses the moral rules to be used? I suspect Bush thinks he's doing the morally right things. It's hard enough for 9 justices to agree on interpreting laws. The only countries I know that agree on moral rules tend to be theocracies and I'm more frightened of them.
Well, I agree with your last post... and, having fleshed out the approach (legal basis), we are back to answering the original question: (1) there is aboslutelly no proof that W backs torture, (2) there is no proof that Abu Graib is the evidence of the government policy, (3) the threat to veto the bill condemning torture is not a confirmation of the torture policy.... therefore, to address the last question in your entry (that started the discussion), concluding that W supports the turture does seem unjustified... :)
the last anonymous post was me :)
On your points: (1) maybe not proof, but I think the original posting shows some evidence, (2) Abu Graib is certainly not gov't stated policy, though it does seem that gov't stated policy is poorly worded or confusing enough to allow such things to happen there and in other places, and based on McCain's amendment, it seems it hasn't gotten better, (3) while it's still in the posturing I think you give too little credence to the threat and the time Cheney spent to prevent it. Is the title of the post perhaps too strongly worded, yeah, I'll conceded that, but then again, this is a blog and not a court transcript :)
"...this is a blog and not a court transcript :)" Exactly. So, as Anonymous suggested, moving on to light-hearted topic... hmm... a Christmas movie!... I caught "Love Actually" this weekend... Good movie. Good scene with US president... Damn, no way to get away from politics! :)
It is a good movie :)
Here's some interesting info on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. I hope SCOTUS hears the case.
On this subject, a couple of years ago Alan Dershowitz raised this question. I found the link below after a brief search on the net:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/dershowitz_torture_could_be_justified.htm
Post a Comment