Amnesty International recently released a report comparing US practices to 'gulags' and saying that our permissive attitude is leading to human rights abuses in other countries like Haiti. I don't know that I buy that, but this issue is not one where we can afford the normal maneuvering and 'he started it, no she started it' type finger-pointing and blame shoving. This is something that we need to seriously address right now, or lose whatever claim we might have had to the 'moral authority' necessary to impose democracy on Iraq and (by extension) the world.
So, what do we need to do?
First we need to end the practice of indefinite imprisonment. This violates US principles and the fact that it's likely that nothing will ever come up before a judge or public scrutiny leads to abuse. Perhaps we're not Constitutionally required to extend some form of 'due process' to these men, but if we really believe in this stuff as ideals, we should be more than willing to spread our ideals all over the world, which is what Bush is ostensibly trying to do anyway.
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:
Article comments
1 - SFC SKI
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.
2 - Leoniceno
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.'
3 - SFC SKI
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?
4 - Leoniceno
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.
5 - Dave Nalle
Um, in five incedents guards TOUCHED a Koran and this is a big deal to you? Come again?
Dave
6 - Leoniceno
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