<p>McCain’s argument is that if we clarify 1(c) our soldiers will be subjected to abuse, if captured. It’s clearly a fatuous argument, since all of the other sections, which we do not ignore, dealing with prisoner treatment in which we do not engage, are quite clear–and they didn’t save him. We’re not ignoring anything. We’re asking for a clarification of what “(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment” actually means. For example, if a muslim is interrogated by a woman or a homosexual, I’m sure that’s very humiliating and degrading for him. Poor baby…What to do? Shall we not allow female interrogators? Is it humiliating or degrading to be subjected to SF training? I would say no–it’s scary, and uncomfortable. Poor terrorist.</p>
<p>
It seems unlikely to me that our soldiers would be captured by governments who honor the Geneva Convention. </p>
<p>It wasn’t honored in Viet Nam was it, or is it the case that the North Vietnamese hadn’t signed it?</p>
<p>It wasn’t honored in Mogadishu, was it? I don’t think either civilians or military personnel captured in Iraq were treated according to those rules. What about Jessica Lynch?</p>
<p>Every civilized country should show basic decency in how they treat their prisoners of war – it just doesn’t seem to happen.</p>
<p>My point is that our soldiers, and indeed our civilians, are tortured and abused even with the clause as it is today.</p>
<p>P.S. If loud music, sleep deprivation, and being treated with disrespect is considered torture, I want a lawyer to defend MY rights under the Geneva Convention. Parents everywhere will rise to my cause.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Or perhaps we differ about what the point is. In my book, just about the worst thing you can do to an interrogated prisoner is deny him a lawyer and a tribunal…because without that, there is absolutely no check on what else might happen. You can have all the rules in the world, but there is every reason to think that the rules will be disobeyed when there is no independent check on the process. Honestly, I’d rather see waterboarding etc. officially allowed, but due process rights granted, than have rules that say we must treat the prisoners with kid gloves, but no way to guarantee that that’s what actually happens.</p>
<p>Whatever else they may do to you in Green Beret training, they don’t take away your opportunity to claim that you don’t belong there. And that’s the part of this whole prisoner scenario that terrifies me (and ought to terrify any genuine conservative who believes that the government is fallible).</p>
<p>I think you’re conflating two issues–the tribunals, and acceptable interrogation under Article 3. This article does a good job of seperating the two, I think.
<a href=“http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/2006/09/a_plea_for_clarity_jed_babbin.html[/url]”>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/2006/09/a_plea_for_clarity_jed_babbin.html</a>
I’ve never heard of any prisoners of war who were given attorneys after capture. I think you actually have a hot date tonight, and your cat is making these posts. Should we allow female or gay agents to interrogate muslim prisoners, if it would make them feel humiliated or degraded?</p>
<p>I am amazed that so many think they are smarter than so many in the army, guess all your experiences surpass theirs…</p>
<p>cgm…what comments are you referring to specifically?</p>
<p>OK, in the spirit of compromise, I think the president should introduce a proposal to interrogate terrorists by putting them on big roller coasters. I don’t know…would they need a formal legal hearing prior to a trip to Disney World? I think not, but I’m sure the Dems think so. It just might work, and it would be fun to watch those robes and beards flappin’ in the breeze and to listen to those Arabic screams of joy. What a great campaign ad. “Dems oppose free roller coaster rides for terrorists…Schumer and Pelosi say U.S. guilty of torture.”</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.kidzworld.com/site/p2418.htm[/url]”>http://www.kidzworld.com/site/p2418.htm</a></p>
<p>treatment of prisonors…obviously the president is smarter than many of his generals, he after all has such experience in these matters…and McCain’s experience, well, gee…</p>
<p>I hate to sound boast*ful, but I’m really liking my idea. Amusement park “torture” could allow us to violate Article 3 right under the world’s collective nose. Isn’t there a “Tower of Terror” at Disney World? How a propos!!! I hear it has pretty serious vertical drop with a lot of scary monsters as a bonus. Give 'em that, and a couple of rides on a seriously high and twisty roller coaster, buy them some cotton candy and cracker jack (can you imagine picking that stuff out of your beard? Ouch, ouch, ouch), and I’ll bet they’ll be falling all over themselves to tell our guys where they next plan to incinerate mass groups of innocent men, women, and children. But will the Dems allow such harsh treatment?</p>
<p>Citygirlsmom, do you personally know any military officers? My experience has been that members of the military, especially career officers, support the Commander-In-Chief. I believe that the President enjoys the support and respect of most if not all. I understand that he is in close contact with those in the field – just read Tommy Franks biography if you want to get a feel for how they feel about the President. Unless you are currently on active duty, I tend to discount remarks that imply otherwise.</p>
<p>This is just a guess, but I imagine that many of the more conservative posters on CC are either currently involved with the military or national defense in some way, or are close to those that are.</p>
<p>
I had missed this gem earlier, sjmom! And you can’t just quit and walk away either. Torture!</p>
<p>Put them in the comfy chair…and POKE them with the soft cushions. NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!</p>
<p>
SJMom,</p>
<p>I second Driver’s take on your great comment. Why, I bet we can even get your lawsuit certified as a class action on behalf of parents everywhere.</p>
<p>Well, the consensus seems to be that we should send the Gitmo detainees to Disneyworld along with some American teenagers. That’ll work–as long as it gets through the FISA court.</p>
<p>
Hanna,</p>
<p>I’m mystified by your persistence on this issue, which means either you are missing the point or I am. Here’s my take on this subject and please help me understand why we are at cross purposes:</p>
<p>Driver’s point relates to what interrogation tactics can be used on suspected unlawful combatants. I think she believes it should be acceptable to use waterboarding and other stress-based techniques that are part of survival training for Green Berets, Rangers, etc. </p>
<p>As I read it, your point concerns the right of unlawful combatants to legal counsel. I assume you believe this right to counsel would attach at every stage of the process after capture. In essence, you would apply the Sixth Amendment right to counsel to unlawful combatants in the same manner it applies to Americans accused of a crime. </p>
<p>Even if you grant suspected unlawful combatants the right to counsel for some purposes, that shouldn’t negate the ability to interrogate them unless you insist on treating them as entitled to the full rights enjoyed by US citizens. Even the US Supreme Court won’t go that far.</p>
<p>Apart from the US Supreme Court opinion on this subject, as a practical matter your approach treats the status of unlawful combatants as a legal matter. You’ve redefined the war on terror as cops and robbers. This is an issue with which anyone who watches Law and Order, CSI, or Cops is familiar … ergo, it sounds like the right thing to do. It isn’t. By definition, war is anarchy. Western civilization created the Geneva Conventions in the hope of imposing basic standards of decency on the process of war, primarily to protect civilians. All parties have to try to comply with those rules for the concept to be effective. Terrorists don’t comply and, worse yet, they make us comply when they won’t. </p>
<p>If America were a nation that thought only of survival, we would abrogate all rules of war except one: win at all costs. We aren’t that kind of nation. Instead, we seek to modify the rules to provide the maximum protection to innocents and combatants while still protecting our military force and our nation. The fact that we sometimes let our own military people be injured or killed rather than harm civilians speaks volumes about our standards. Our enemies don’t share those standards. That discrepancy doesn’t justify torture or inhumane treatment. It also doesn’t justify a policy that requires us to let suspected combatants lawyer up.</p>
<p>
I’m on board, as long as you make sure to send teenagers that don’t want to be there. Nothing could be worse than that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know at least a few soldiers who don’t support the Bush presidency (politically, that is.) Be careful of unrepresentative samples and all that.</p>
<p>driver,</p>
<p>Disneyland? Pfft. Send them to Knotts Berry Farm. Now THAT’S torture. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>The military are not uniform, no pun intended, in their support of Bush. More than two dozen recent vets are running for Senate & House as Democrats, only one–Van Taylor, challenging Chet Edwards in the TX-22, is a Republican. The Dems range from Vice Admiral Sestak in the PA-07 to LCDR. Eric Massa in the NY-29 to CSM Walz in the MN-01. Also Maj. Tammy Duckworth, Army National Guard helicopter pilot who lost both legs and an arm in Iraq, who is running in the IL-06.</p>
<p>All of them are running as anti-Bush, anti-Iraq war. My favorite was Maj. Paul Hackett, USMC, who ran in the special election against Jean Schmidt in the OH-2 last year and called Bush a lying sonofa***** on the record. And then we’ve got Reagan’s former SecNav running for Senate in Virginia against Senator Macaca.</p>
<p>Kerry got about 40 percent of the military vote and I suspect the Dems will get more in the Congressional elections this time.</p>
<p>It’s a myth that the military is solidly Republican. But many of those who aren’t keep their mouths shut for the sake of being prudent. It also skews: career officers tend to be Republican, enlisted ranks aren’t much more Republican than the general population.</p>
<p>
The population of the U.S. seems to be pretty evenly split between Republicans and Democrats. Those who choose to make the military a career may be more traditional in their thinking, hence lean toward the Republican point of view. </p>
<p>I was responding to CGM’s comments:
Maybe I misunderstood her intent, but it sounded as if she was claiming that very high level military officers – Generals – disagree with the President. I just don’t believe that.</p>
<p>P.S. It’s always nice to hear from you, TD!</p>
<p>
It just occured to me that using belligerent teenagers in the interrogation process will necessarily involve excessively loud rock music–possibly a violation of the terrorist’s Article 3 [1(c)] rights, as interpreted by McCain. This is the kind of thing the president is trying to get clarified.</p>
<p>Worthwhile reading re Guantanamo…it seems that those so inclined can become pen-pals with a terrorist.
<a href=“http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008952[/url]”>http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008952</a></p>