Abuse allegations must be addressed, not just explained away.
Published May 29, 2005
Some may argue that we'll be letting dangerous terrorists back into the world. If they're so dangerous, surely we'll be able to prove something that will keep them in jail, at least in a military tribunal.
The leadership also needs to set down a clear line on their 'torture' policy. They seem to have said that some form of physical persuasion is OK, but they're not really clear on what, and then there's humiliation tactics, etcetera. Apparently soldiers and officers in the field are incapable of thinking logically before doing some of this stuff, so it's necessary to spell it out. The information that you can get out of people by humiliating them and kicking and beating them is unreliable, and not nearly useful enough to make up for the beating that the United States is taking in the world at large, and (more importantly) it's image in Iraq and in the Muslim world. Here's what the policy should be:
The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.
That's the Geneva Convention.
I'm not generally a big fan of international law, because I think that it's unenforceable, and I think that the United States has a right, no a responsibility! To exercise it's clout and do whatever it pleases. But the Geneva Convention is one piece of international law that I'm coming down in favor of.
It was agreed to by every civilized nation on the face of the planet, which is more than a dinky UN resolution has got going for it. And it's crammed full of stuff that the US should do without being asked.
It seems that the major geopolitical players have got it sorted out to where there won't be another big old world conflict for a while. The presence of nukes serve as a deterent to arrive at peaceful conclusions. So, the new opponent is these terrorists, who attack civilians and aren't at all interested in the Geneva Convention, or any convention at all other than how to best win. Why should we continue to follow the Convention when our oppoents will not?
Because the goal of combat has changed along with the manner of combat. Whereas in the past, physical resources have played large role, now a large part of the conflict is over what you might call 'the hearts and minds of the people.' If the people of these countries see that we treat our opponents with respect even when they do not, perhaps they will be more inclined to help us, or at least cease to aide the terrorists. Plus it's morally right. For me, it's as simple as that.
---
Cross-posted to Leoniceno's Corner
Sam Jack is a college freshman, and is Forum Editor of the Harvard Independent. Visit him at The Harvard Independent and the Harvard Dems blog.
- Abuse allegations must be addressed, not just explained away.
- Published: May 29, 2005
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Politics
- Writer: Sam Jack
- Sam Jack's BC Writer page
- Sam Jack's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Well, if we applied that same logic to criminals in our own country, we'd workin the interest of national security by locking up anyone suspected of a crime and leaving them locked up. We have enough trust in our system that we don't feel like we have to do this. Instead we have fair trials, and don't worry too much that we are letting scads of criminals back onto the streets.
I don't understand why we're so paranoid about giving some semblance of the same treatment to the Guantanamo Bay people. I'm not opposed to tough regulations, unjuried trials, whatever. I just want there to be some formalization of their status. It needs to be said that they are prisoners of the United States on such-and-such a charge. Until this happens they might as well be UFOs.
And on the first bit, what strikes me as strange is that the Pentagon has conveniently shoved half of the alleged incidents into a box conveniently labelled 'accidental.'
It is very easy for a person not trained in all aspects of another culture or religion to cause offense, does that make the actions of that person accidental or purposeful?
I used two 'conveniently's in the same sentence, didn't I...
What I mean is that the Pentagon needs to be more transparent, and shouldn't be ruling things out before they start investigating. Of course I'm not saying that it's impossible to accidentally defile the Koran. What's important is that we get it sorted out to where it might satisfy at the least the more moderate middle easterners. This requires more than a statement in a Pentagon press release that they consider a certain class of allegations resolved.
Um, in five incedents guards TOUCHED a Koran and this is a big deal to you? Come again?
Dave
No, I'm not concerned with that, what I was saying is that when the United States simply says that five of the incidents are resolved it is bound to seem less than transparent from a world view-point. I'm probably just missing information. Anyway, the first section of the post is really not related to the rest of it. I probably should've edited it out; my attention drifted elsewhere before I bothered to explain what I meant. So now, as always, I'm writing comments that outstrip the length of the original post!
-Leoniceno
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/30276)
The reason there are so many terms is that in this day and age, there have to be. Another reason is that the military has a lot of lawyers that are consulted in drafting regulations and policies, and if you no anything about law it is that words have specific meanings.
I do agree that torture has to be defined.
Last and not nearly fully explained, we have to look at what works best for national security, not just what gives us moral authority or makes everyone feel good. I don't wrrite this to excuse past abuses or present practices, but out of a sense of pragmatism, if I can use that term here.