Glenn Reynold has now updated his post on the so-called "torture memo" associated with AG Gonzales multiple times, and I’m at an utter loss. (Original ObWi discussion here.) The issue is whether Gonzales should be questioned at today’s hearings regarding a 2002 memorandum that he authored which took a, well, novel position on the law of torture.
Glenn wrote that he was against this questioning, because he feared it would ultimately harm the case against torture:
[M]y sense is that the GOP is thrilled with the idea of Congressional hearings in which Democrats can be characterized as soft on terror. It’s the old "soft on criminals" routine revisited. How did that work out again?
…. I think the effort to turn this into an anti-Bush political issue is a serious mistake, and the most likely outcome will be, in essence, the ratification of torture (with today’s hype becoming tomorrow’s reality) and a political defeat for the Democrats.
Fine, I (and others) responded. We share your concern. But please tell us, if not today, when it would be a good time to discuss Gonzales’ 2002 memo. When shall we discuss its conclusions and analyses? When shall we discuss the quality of Gonzales’ work and his general views on the scope and extent of the prohibition against torture? The man is being nominated to the post of Attorney General, after all. It’s a post that requires some familiarity with the law and, given the broad discretion that an Attorney General wields, some understanding as to which alleged crimes will be prosecuted.
Glenn’s response? He’s still concerned that having a debate over the Gonzales memo at Gonzales’ hearings is "likely to produce an environment in which torture is more, not less, likely." (Here, Final Update as of this writing.)
Umm, yes, I got you the first time. And, please understand, I feel your pain, share your concern, and am not interested in unnecessarily weakening Bush prior to the debate over Social Security reform — because (as I’ve written) Social Security needs reforming.
But, again, when do you propose discussing the Gonzales memo? At his Supreme Court hearings?
When, Glenn? That’s the question on the table. Now? Or later? Or never?
UPDATE: Greg Djerejian is thinking along similar lines to Professor Reynolds:
I know and feel Gonzalez is going to get the nod. To pillory him and make his hearings an anti-torture crusade, spearheaded by everyone from the ACLU to a few rogue Republican senators–and then still have him confirmed, well, it will accomplish little. What is needed is a dispassionate hearing that neverthless delves deeply into the issues raised by, for instance, the August ’02 memo. But this torture story is so much bigger than Alberto Gonzalez. Trust me. Let’s not make his (non)confirmation a referendum on whether organ failure has to occur for something to be called torture. Gonzalez should never have lent the White House Counsel’s office to such morally defunct and, too boot, poor legal advice. But there aren’t any Dean Achesons around, alas. And trying to Bork Gonzalez in some Washington firestorm simply isn’t the best way to get to the bottom of the torture scandals that look to grow and grow. Put differently, and if you were really looking to go for the jugular, this just ain’t the right time for an attempted TKO. Keep (at least some) of the powder dry–or risk a setback in getting to the real bottom of how widespread torture has been during the post 9/11 era through Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan and likely points beyond.
Again, I have sympathy for these kinds of concerns. Picking your battles is important. But there are two problems with this kind of thinking. First, there comes a time when the battle picks you. There should be some errors that — if you truly believe them to be errors — you do not let pass without comment.
Second, and more fundamentally, who the heck believes that having dry powder is some kind of political advantage? Have y’all been asleep the last 30 years? Did ya miss Clinton’s presidency? Or for that matter, so-called "no mandate" Bush? The way a scandal has political impact is by a drumbeat, raising it at every legitimate opportunity.
Moreover, those who would support an official government policy favoring torture — Glenn’s and Greg’s worst case scenario, I presume — have no official support. As our own Edward noted in "Getting Gonzales Ready for His Close-up," the Justice Department has all-but-disowned Gonzales’ 2002 memo. Nor is there a Kingfisher in the wings waiting to play the heavy.
Torture survives only because it’s in the dark. It’s supported only when it’s not really considered. It’s awful easy for a blogger to sit and fulminate at his computer about how we should torture terrorists. "It’s us or them!" such folks are fond of shouting. But put them next to a picture of a sixteen year old boy who was beaten and sodomized — and, it turns out, was also completely innocent — and tell me who wins. Oh, but I meant torture under only the right circumstances, under some controls, you’ll hear. Well, good. Now we can discuss the kinds of controls.
After all, it may be true that you have to crack a couple eggs to make an omlette, but no one would urge making your omlette on the floor and not a stove. The darkness that Glenn and Greg fear is not near.
Now is the time to start the debate. No, it may not stop Gonzales’ elevation; but the fight won’t end with Gonzales’ elevation. This is the beginning.
(Praktike thinks the Democrats are planning it all out this way. Anything is possible, I guess. But I’m not here to help the Democrats score cheap points. I’m hear to fight against torture.)
UPDATE 2: I did not mean to imply that Praktike is trying to score a cheap political point. My apologies. What Praktike does say in conclusion is (among other things): "I would urge Glenn Reynolds, who says he opposes torture, to use his influence to aggressively push for … an examination [of the Gonzales memo] rather than using it to bash the Democratic Party."
I second the motion.
Cowardice-inspired drivel, Reynold’s rant. Even if the populace has been scared enough–by color-coded charts and AG press conferences with large poster photos of “terrorists” who turned out to be less dangerous than wet noodles–to privately feel that anyone suspected of being connected with the “terrorists” deserves to be treated as cruelly as humanlly possible, it’s up to the leadership of this country to calmly explain to them why that is unequivocally immoral.
The idea that a ground-swell of mob mentality will force the government to alter our values here is one of the lamest arguments imaginable for defending his longtime undefendable soft stand on what’s been happening. He must realize that some callous idiot will have to exploit the questioning to paint those asking the tough questions as “soft on terrorists”…it won’t just happen on its own. Why isn’t Reynolds pre-emptively throwing a bucket of cold water on those jerks instead here?
Katherine said it best, Reynold’s is sickening on this point.
Sully, who’s apparently working on an article on torture and got access to the reports, notes the following:
If Reynolds thinks that average Americans will insist on ratifying this sort of thing, he doesn’t understand his country.
The problem I have is not that Reynolds has that opinion, but that he just threw it out there without any sort of justification at all. I mean, how are we supposed to fathom why he “think[s] that the people who are doing that are likely to produce an environment in which torture is more, not less, likely”? Does he imagine that political backlash can include signing off on torture as some sort of payback?
No. Not if I have anything at all to say about it, no. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood, but what I had to work with sort of demanded a clear explanation.
I do understand his objection to this becoming a political football, but I think the problem here is that this issue hasn’t been addressed in public, by the government, yet, and it’s relevant to Gonzales’ confirmation hearings. So there may be some unpleasantness to come, but we’ve earned it. And I say “we” as a Republican. When you let stuff like this lie without some explanation to the public about what you’re doing and why, this is the result.
Painful for me to say, that was. But necessary.
What frightens me is that maybe, just maybe, he does understand it. Or at least the 50.someodd percent that voted for his guy…
More on what a Gonzales confirmation would mean to the nation. I hope Bush reconsiders and withdraws his nomination. Of course, I hope I’ll win the megajackpot lottery as well.
Slart, von: Thanks. In a generally disheartening (to me) political season, it matters.
Now sounds like a good time to me.
Torture Roundup
God I hate having to type that title, but that’s what this post is.
Today’s New York Times had a
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Oh, and von?
This would be better:
while(1)cout<<"WTF?"<
Oh, and von? This would be better (although not, to be sure, strictly good programming):
while(1)cout<<"WTF?"<
Eek. Something ate part of my comment. Let’s try it again:
while(1)cout << "WTF?" << endl;
Slarti, I’m a pure BASICA guy. That’s right. I kick it old skool.
von
Shouldn’t that be “20. GOTO 10”? The RETURN statement is for getting out of subroutines.
Shouldn’t that be “20. GOTO 10”? The RETURN statement is for getting out of subroutines.
Erm, yes. Apparently, I also kick it erroneously.
See, I knew that because I had extensive training with this kind of program when I was a kid (the strings I put in line 10 usually expressed my less-than-friendly feelings towards my older brother and usually wouldn’t have passed the posting rules for this site).
Good list so far:
Russ Feingold, Lindsey Graham
Bad list:
Cornyn, Sessions, Kennedy (stop bloviating and as a d*mn question! A SHORT question), Kohl (great big “meh”).
Gonzales is utterly unrepentant and dodging worse than I thought. And this is true and depressing.
Bad list in a big way: Schumer. WTF, Chuckie? Roe v. Wade is not the only issue in the world. And you haven’t asked a single question.
If Reynolds is concerned that liberals taking the Bush adminsitration to task will end up with the legitimization of torture becoming a partisan issue, the why is he not urging leading conservatives to be spearheading the issue instead? Surely, on maral and ethical grounds alone, this is a bipartisan issue?
The cynic in me says it’s because he’s less concerned with torture than he is with the Bush administration looking bad, and that this is his rationalization. But I sure as hell hope that I’m wrong.
Good list in a big way: Durbin. I am so, so jealous of Illinois.
They’re cutting away now as Coburn warms up, which is really just as well–though I’d hate to miss it if he asks about rampant lesbianism in the D.O.J. restrooms.
a true geek would do:
for(;puts("WTF");)that’ll repeat until puts() fails … which probably means the computer has died.
What the hell’s wrong with making it a “political football”? Isn’t the issue of whether or not “The US is a country that condones torture” a critical matter to American national identity?
Let’s imagine Reynolds in 1848:
“The discussion on whether the new states of California, Utah and New Mexico should be slave states or not should not involve making the issue of slavery itself a political football. Now is not the time to publicly discuss whether enslaving people is right or wrong, for fear of a backlash…”
True geeks use assembler:
; ——————–
mov ax,cs
mov ds,ax
mov ah,9
mov dx, offset wtf_msg
int 21h
xor ax,ax
int 21h
wtf_msg:
db “WTF?”,13,10,”$”
Don’t make me pull out my Postscript manual.
Oops, forgot the uncondition jump statement.
DpuG: The cynic in me says it’s because he’s less concerned with torture than he is with the Bush administration looking bad, and that this is his rationalization. But I sure as hell hope that I’m wrong.
No, I think you’re right. (Of course, I’m a total cynic.)
But part of the reason why I think some Republicans are afraid of fighting the torture issue is the same reason some Democrats are – because it can so easily be presented, and has been presented, as a “You oppose torturing terrorists? What are you, soft on terrorism?”
The Republican style of campaigning over the past years has been frequently to present their opponents as “soft on terrorism” – to the extent that whatever an opponent proposes, even if it’s something as sensible as “Let’s not throw away the Geneva Conventions” or “Let’s not invade Iraq making claims of WMD when we’re not actually sure there are any” it has been presented as the opponent being “soft on terrorism”. It’s a very powerful, very nasty weapon – and it’s not something I’ve seen Republicans generally oppose the use of.
I think that there are a good many Senators who specifically do not want the torture memo discussed because they do not want to give the impression that they are “soft on terrorists”: they don’t want to have to publicly endorse torture, but they don’t want to be seen to publicly oppose it, either. I think this is a genuinely bipartisan stance, and the fault lies with the media and with the senior Republicans who have made any attempt to follow the rule of law with respect to terrorist suspects as an example of being “soft on terrorism”.
Because the right thing to do can get pushed aside for political expediency. Both sides do it. But your trust in politicians might be higher than mine.
DPU:
That brought back some old nightmares, in which I had to program an 8085 via hex keypad. Real geeks program in hex/binary; assembler is just a set of mnemonics for those who can’t keep the instructions straight.
:p
“a true geek would do:”
If a true geek tried to put a side-effect function into the continuation condition of a for loop in my office, I’d fire them. And possibly defenstrate.
Don’t make me do it in x86 machine language. Don’t, I say!
“What the hell’s wrong with making it a “political football”?”
Because beating the other party for its own sake is principle-neutral. It implies that your party is right about absolutely everything all the time, and therefore the only principled solution is to destroy the other party. I’d rather they take it issue by issue.
Having watched this morning’s Judiciary Committee hearing, I have to say it was pretty mild. Gonzales is getting confirmed; it is written in the stars. I think that Leahy was probably the only one making it a spectacle. I thought that Lindsay Graham asked the most pointed questions in re: torture. Schumer was mostly concerned with whether Gonzales was going to consult on future court nominees, and laid down a marker to the effect that if Gonzales comes out for the Supreme Court, it will be ugly.
(By the way, he was, in fact, questioned about the memo, and agreed to respond later top Graham’s Q as to whether or not he agreed with it).
BTW, Von, I don’t think that’s a fair characterization of what I said. Here’s what I said:
I don’t think that says that I’m in favor of “scoring cheap points.”
If a true geek tried to put a side-effect function into the continuation condition of a for loop in my office, I’d fire them.
Me too. Tricky is fun to look at, but bad when placed in an actual code asset.
We need a geek thread to stop this pollution of an actual discussion. Or maybe we just need to check the Daily WTF more often.
If a true geek tried to put a side-effect function into the continuation condition of a for loop in my office, I’d fire them.
hey now, don’t knock obfuscation. it keeps the brain sharp!
von, if you oppose torture, you ought to support the Democrats’ developing a decent and effective political strategy for opposing torture. It doesn’t have to involve cheap point scoring and praktile didn’t say it did.
At some point spotless moderate, non-partisan credentials have to yield to more important things.
Bravo, DPU. I’m bookmarking that for later fun. Not that I’m an actual geek, mind you. At least not a software geek, anyway.
I don’t think that says that I’m in favor of “scoring cheap points.”
Praktike, my sincere apologies: I didn’t mean to imply that you were — although I can see how my phrases suggests as much. I’ll put an update out.
I have the same sense of dread that Gonzales will be confirmed and that if Democrats oppose him, this will be interpreted as a defeat for the Dems. But speaking as a partisan Democrat, I think it is vital that we do oppose him and take the defeat if it comes — if the US government is to endorse torture it must be clear that the opposition party disagrees unequivocally with this endorsement. This will make it far easier, when the Democrats retake power, to clean up the mess.
But I’m only a cock-eyed opt-imist…
They’re not going to filibuster. Judging from the judiciary committee I would say that Salazar, Kohl and Schumer are definitely going to vote for him. Feingold probably will vote against but would also oppose a filibuster, just as with Ashcroft. Biden will probably vote for him. Kennedy will not. Leahy probably will not. Durbin I’m not sure about but probably not. Those are the ones I’ve heard speak. So you’re looking at an even split even among the Democrats, and I doubt a single Republican will oppose him.
I wonder what Obama does in the full Senate vote.
I would guess he gets confirmed with 70 votes or more.
I was reading “The Plot Against America” over the weekend. Only 125 pages in, but it’s really good. I don’t think there’s any real attempt to draw a parallel between that and today’s political decision, but no question that any Democrat can identify with that combination of anger and disbelief and helplessness that the characters are feeling.
The one line that I think must be deliberate is when the eight year old protagonist asks his father, “What about the Democrats, can’t they do something?”
The father’s response:
“Son, don’t ask me about the Democrats. I’m angry enough as it is.”
Leahy’s statement. The FONTS ARE HUGE!
Thanks for the update, von.
I think that, as you can see from the general tenor of the Democrats’ statements today, the hope is that Gonzales will be more willing to work with them on some things if they don’t come after him with fangs bared.
Look at this last bit from Leahy:
In other words, torture is bad, and you more or less approved of it. We’re going to talk about torture at these hearings. But since we aren’t going to waste our filibuster, we might as well try to preserve some kind of relationship with you.
sometimes i forget why i once thought politics was an utter waste of time and energy.
and then there are times like these, when there’s a debate about whether or not to promote a person who made the legal case for torture, and all we get out of our representatives is posturing, positioning and pandering.
“The FONTS ARE HUGE!”
And bold! Like action! Patrick is frisky after his nap.
So, America has decided. Approving of torture is bad, but not in the same category of “bad” as failing to pay taxes on the household help.
“Thus the State had been revolutionised, and there was not a vestige left of the old sound morality”.
-Tacitus, 14-15 A.D.
Pretty good, Felixrayman. I intend to “borrow” that line.
Advocating torture is bad, but not bad enough for one to be promoted to the highest levels of Government. Unlike….{{fill in the blanks}}
felix: As far as I can see, “America” was never asked.
True, any regular reader of Obsidian Wings knew that voting for Bush was voting for a President who endorsed torture, thanks to Katherine’s steady, detailed work: but unfortunately, that kind of reportage just wasn’t happening in the mass media. Neither Bush nor Kerry raised the issue directly: Bush’s SBVfL raised the issue indirectly, strongly suggesting that people like Kerry who speak out against atrocities committed by the US military are traitors or worse. That could have been taken up by the Democrats, pointing out that the choice on November 2nd was between a President who had endorsed torture and a Presidential candidate with a strong track record of opposing and speaking out against such atrocities in the past: but it wasn’t.
Yes, the President who endorsed torture won the election. But, unfortunately, “do you wish to endorse torture” was not a question raised in the electoral campaign. So it’s not fair to say “America has decided”: America was never asked.
Von wrote:
Really and how well did those work out again? You may want to ask (former) House Speaker Newt Gingrich and (former) Senate Majority/Minority Leader Tom Daschle.
As far as what Glenn Reynolds actually wrote, I agree with his analysis but disagree with his conclusion. Yes, Democrats will engage in the usual hyperbole about “torture” rather than trying to help develop some constructive policy guidelines on interrogation guidelines (which was the actual topic of Reynolds’ post BTW) which will pretty much shows that this is really just another partisan issue for them rather than a serious disagree about policy and/or values. Republicans will be able to counter that the actual measures represent “harsh” or “coercive interrogation techniques” rather than what most reasonable people consider to be “torture.” And yes a majority of the people will agree with Republicans.
But hey if y’all want to keep getting your panties in a bunch over the memo that Gonzales actually wrote that you hope represents some “smoking gun,” be my guest. I doubt that the American public shares your view that it is somehow a “novel” idea that treaties such as the Geneva Convention and the protections they afford apply to the high contracting parties who follow them rather than unlawful combatants such as Al-Qaeda. Nor for that matter does his weighing of the pros and cons of applying those protections to those who don’t follow them anyway likely to be considered as reflecting poorly on the quality of his work. *
As others have pointed out it probably won’t stop Gonzales from being confirmed as AG or higher. But it will serve to weaken Democrats politically and provide momentum for Republicans that they can use on more important issues such as Social Security and health care reform. Which unlike Reynolds, I tend favor.
* I’m assuming the Von who insists that he is merely concerned about Gonzales’ legal reasoning and the quality of his work is actually referring to the memo that Gonzales actually wrote rather than dishonestly (as so many have done) trying to impeach the credibility of either over memorandums that someone else had written.
Really and how well did those work out again? You may want to ask (former) House Speaker Newt Gingrich and (former) Senate Majority/Minority Leader Tom Daschle.
You think Bush is doomed as well? (We could also cite Watergate, Iran-Contra, et al. Some scandals will consume those who start them, of course.)
I’m assuming the Von who insists that he is merely concerned about Gonzales’ legal reasoning and the quality of his work is actually referring to the memo that Gonzales actually wrote rather than dishonestly (as so many have done) trying to impeach the credibility of either over memorandums that someone else had written.
Of course. But, understand, this isn’t a narrow Rule 11 inquiry. The test is not technical or legal. This is a question of the policies set in Gonzales’ memorandum, and their impact on conduct. (But surely you recognize that.)
Von wrote:
Watergate arguably is true but it isn’t true for the two that you actually cited in your post. But hey if you want to insist that Senate Democrats shoot themselves in the foot while catering to the fever swamp crowd, I’m all for showing them how to load a gun.
The policies sent in Gonzales’ memorandum would actually be those in the memorandum that was actually written by Gonzales as opposed to those written by someone else in the DOJ which his more dishonest critics have tried to smear him with.
As I said before I doubt most people share your view that is somehow “novel” that unlawful combatants are neither signators to the Geneva Convention nor follow them are somehow guaranteed its protections. Nor is it likely that weighing the pros and cons of applying it on a case-by-case basis for unlawful combatants going to be considered by most people as reflecting negatively on the quality of Gonzales’ work.
Yes, Democrats will engage in the usual hyperbole about “torture” rather than trying to help develop some constructive policy guidelines on interrogation guidelines (which was the actual topic of Reynolds’ post BTW) which will pretty much shows that this is really just another partisan issue for them rather than a serious disagree about policy and/or values.
Strangely, I have a “serious disagree” about policies that legitimate torture. They pretty blatantly contradict my values too. And I bloody well hope that Republicans and Democrats are in harmony on this issue because if not, well, that’d be a far worse thing to say about the Republicans than anything I’ve managed thus far.
“Yes, Democrats will engage in the usual hyperbole about “torture” rather than trying to help develop some constructive policy guidelines on interrogation guidelines (which was the actual topic of Reynolds’ post BTW)”
Here’s a decent start. The two main authors are moderate Democrats. The advisory board was bipartisan and included some former Bush DOJ officials but was also mainly moderate to liberal Democrats, I would say.
Please let me know when Dennis Hastert decides to repeal his rule that the House will not debate any legislation supported by a “majority of the majority”, so that proposals like this bill and Edward Markey’s bill to outlaw “extraordinary rendition” can actually be considered. Please also let me know when a single Republican member of Congress votes to subpoena a single document investigating the extent of the abuse or torture, or when the White House releases any of those documents voluntarily. In the alternative, if you think the threshhold for a Congressional investigation has not been reached, please tell me when you think it would be.
Katherine wrote:
More like a false start as nothing in the document actually addresses the issue from the Reynolds’ piece. Namely what techniques are acceptable under what circumstances. It does present some interesting thought and ideas on tangential issues though.
I’ll send an email to Speaker Hastert recommending that he reconsider the “majority of the majority” rule (although House Democrats were hardly better sans NAFTA) after Senate Minority Leader Reid has promised (in writing) that Senate Democrats will not filibuster any more judicial nominees and instead them vote up or down.
Looks like the briar patch is right next to the fever swamp.
FYI everyone: Human rights first is liveblogging the hearings (scroll down past the written statements for the interesting stuff.) As before, Leahy, Durbin, Graham and Feingold’s questions are the most useful but they still don’t get any real answers or don’t have time for adequate follow up.
Did we read the same memo? I think that, yes, once folks understand it, they will find his dismissive approach to the Geneva convention and sole reliance on the Executive Branch to both determine and apply the “case by case” analysis to be a bit disturbing and foolish.
I’m also sure that you don’t mean to suggest that Gonzales shouldn’t be questioned, at all, on the other memos — or that he had absolutely no hand in formulating, requesting, or reacting to them. We do presume that he did his job, no?
Von wrote:
Actually what’s disturbing and foolish is the insistence on applying the GPW to unlawful combatants that were not HCP’s to the GPW and do not follow it in their own practices. But if you wish to make the argument that we should entitle them to these additional protections, feel free.
Unless you can show evidence that the nominee in question had a hand in drafting the contents and/or formulating the legal opinions within said memorandum, it is simply an attempt at smearing by association.
Thorley: Actually what’s disturbing and foolish is the insistence on applying the GPW to unlawful combatants that were not HCP’s to the GPW and do not follow it in their own practices.
Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, article 5:
The Geneva Convention requires all prisoners to be treated as prisoners of war unless “doubt arises” that they are entitled to be so treated. Each prisoner is entitled to a competent tribunal to determine their status as PoW, kidnap victim, or “unlawful combatant”. As others have observed further up the thread, giving even a mass murderer due process under the law does not mean that you are a supporter of mass murderers – merely that you support due process of law.
Jesurgislac wrote:
No it doesn’t. If you bothered to read the entire thing including Article 4 which your excerpt referenced it clearly applies only to (a) High Contracting Parties (of which neither Al-Qaeda nor the Taliban qualify) and/or (b) combatants that meet the guidelines of Article 4 which are:
Neither Al-Qaeda nor the Taliban (which even the UN agreed was not the recognized government of Afghanistan) were a high contracting party to the convention. As such they don’t fall under number 1. Number 2 is the one we usually reference:
Needless to say members of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban don’t wear formal uniforms or a “fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance” nor conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. In the case of Al-Qaeda, they didn’t carry arms openly – hence we call them “unlawful combatants” for failing to meet any of the requirements of 2. The tribunal requirement only pertains in situations where there is doubt and here there wasn’t.
Thorley, if you note: Article 5 comes after Article 4.
If you read through the Geneva Convention from the top, it’s clear that Article 4 specifies the people who are entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention, and then Article 5 goes on to deal with people who aren’t entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention.
Article 5 requires the detaining power to determine the status of prisoners by a competent tribunal, and says that until their status is proved, the prisoners are entitled to the protection of the Convention.
That’s all. This is surely the sensible thing to do, as well as the legal procedure, as it would have prevented a good many highly embarrassing mistakes – the lengthy imprisonment of three young British kids from Tipton who were no more Taliban or Al-Qaeda than they were a threat to the US, for example.
The tribunal requirement only pertains in situations where there is doubt and here there wasn’t.
I beg to differ. I don’t want any government deciding that it has the right to ignore proper procedure just because it has decided there is no doubt that that the prisoners aren’t entitled to proper procedure. In point of fact, as time as shown, there was considerable doubt (or ought to have been) about many of the detainees sent to Guantanamo Bay.
Unless you can show evidence that the nominee in question had a hand in drafting the contents and/or formulating the legal opinions within said memorandum, it is simply an attempt at smearing by association.
He commissioned the memorandum and, as a lawyer for the President, had a fiduciary duty to counsel the President as to its contents. That included, among other things, advising the President regarding the memo’s merits or demerits, such as they are. A failure to do so constitutes legal malpractice. If you have further interest in this area, or want to know the nuances involved in the above (none of which save Gonzales from this particular responsibility), I advise that you start by reviewing the Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers.
Honestly, Thorley, this argument is a dead end for you.
As for the Geneva Convention: It’s a red herring. One can believe al Queda to be unlawful combatants under the Geneva Convention, but still find the relevant memoranda to be crap in the manner that they interpret U.S. law and the international law governing torture.
Jesurgislac wrote:
Yes and those who aren’t protected under Article 5 are those don’t fall under Article 4 which was the point I covered in my previous post. Those who don’t fall under Article 4 are combatants who either (a) aren’t from a HCP or (b) don’t meet the four criteria for being a lawful combatant. Neither Al-Qaeda nor the Taliban qualify and hence they aren’t covered.
No it doesn’t, is says only if there is any doubt as to their status. There is no doubt that Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are not High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Convention (unless you have a copy of the signatures of their representatives) nor is their any doubt that they don’t wear uniforms or follow the rules of war. Failure to meet these conditions excludes them from the GPW.
The argument is not if Al Queda or the Taliban signed the Geneva conventions, but the fact that there is doubt over the individual prisoners detained being subject to the Geneva conventions. Of all the people we rounded up in Afghanistant, Iraq, or anywhere are they actually Al Queda or Talbian, or just other people living in the area who happen to look similar, or be in the wrong place at the wrong time? According to most of what I’ve seen most of the people interned at Abu Ghraib and similar places are actually innocent, and yet they ended up being tortured. How many of the people presented as Taliban or Al Queda to US soldiers weren’t, but people sold out as enemies, or for money? How many people in Iraq? We don’t know. And without tribunals or any attempt to verify wether or not somebody is Al Queda or a Talbian fighter or an insurgent, we can’t know, and so innocent people end up being tortured. And yes, sticking cigarettes in people’s ears, putting electrodes on their genitals, and so on, IS torture. And Alberto Gonzales okayed the memo that redefined torture. And he gave it to President Bush.
Nate wrote:
Really now please provide evidence to support your claim that most of the people interned at Abu Ghraib ended up being tortured.
BTW: your comments about the Geneva Convention and Iraq (e.g. Abu Ghraib) are not particularly interesting as the Gonzales memo (which none of his critics seem to want to actually debate) dealt with Afghanistan only and not Iraq.
Really now, please point to the specific portion of the memo written by the DOJ that authorized electrodes on genitals.
Thorley: No it doesn’t, is says only if there is any doubt as to their status.
Yes, and there clearly was doubt – or should have been – about their status as “Taliban” or “al Qaeda”, since many of those imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay have already been acknowledged not to be Taliban or Al-Qaeda.
Clearly, assessing their status using competent tribunals would have been better than simply deciding in advance that their guilt was evident and no process needed to be followed.
Really now, please point to the specific portion of the memo written by the DOJ that authorized electrodes on genitals.
The 2002 DoJ memo–signed off on by Jay Bybee (Asst AG)–redefined torture as that which “must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.”
That leaves an awful lot of leeway open to sadists, including the use of electrodes on genitals and sexual assault or rape.
Thorley: For your second argument, what Jadegold said above. Is putting electrodes on somebody’s genitals equal to the pain of organ failure? I don’t know. I don’t think there’s any way to quantify the amount of pain or measure it the same between different people.
Really now please provide evidence to support your claim that most of the people interned at Abu Ghraib ended up being tortured.
This is actually my fault for miswording, because that’s not what I was trying to say. I should have said “Most of the people interned at Abu Ghraib were innocent, including ones who were tortured.” I don’t know specifics about abuse and torture at Guantanamo off the top of my head, but as Jesurgislac said, a number of the people interned at Guantanamo have proved to NOT be Taliban or Al Queda, so there should have been doubt about their status. And given the Red Cross’s reporting of abuse and torture there, I would say it is almost certain at least one innocent person was tortured or abused there as well.
Jadegold wrote:
Which would clearly include applying electrodes to an individual’s genitals e.g. organ failure and impairment of bodily function – not that any of the cowards who have been screaming “torture” for the last several months will have the guts to come right out and claim that we’ve authorized any such technique or that we’ve authorized the rape of anyone. Instead the hide behind the implication as they’re doing now with Gonzales.
“not that any of the cowards who have been screaming “torture” for the last several months will have the guts to come right out and claim that we’ve authorized any such technique or that we’ve authorized the rape of anyone. Instead the hide behind the implication as they’re doing now with Gonzales.”
Can anyone say posting violation?
not that any of the cowards who have been screaming “torture” for the last several months will have the guts to come right out and claim that we’ve authorized any such technique or that we’ve authorized the rape of anyone. Instead the hide behind the implication as they’re doing now with Gonzales.
Of course, there is a way for the White House to quell the imaginations of the general public on this. You get the White House to release the rest of the Gonzales memos, Thorley, and then you can call other people cowards.
Which would clearly include applying electrodes to an individual’s genitals e.g. organ failure and impairment of bodily function
Nope. That’s not clear.
“Can anyone say posting violation?”
Yes. Again, Thorley, perhaps you’d like to rephrase that.
can anyone say “long-term, ongoing posting violation”? I have yet to see a post from TW which does not accuse his interlocutors of lying and cowardice.
I stand by the statement but will offer this clarification. It is cowardly and patently dishonest to accuse the administration of authorizing “torture” without having the integrity to specify which techniques that were actually authorized somehow qualify as “torture.” There has been a concerted smear campaign by many to dredge up every example (real or imagined) of an alleged abuse or crime (such as the accusation of a rape of a detainee) and to give the suggestion that this was part of an authorized interrogation policy by either the president or the Attorney General nominee.
Then you haven’t been paying attention, Jeremy. Still, Thorley, you might want to tone that down a bit.
Ummm…IANAL, but I thought Gonzales’ memo noted repeatedly that Bush had specifically required all prisoners to be treated as if the GCW applied, regardless of whether they did or not.
Still, Thorley, you might want to tone that down a bit.
What exactly *does* someone have to do to get banned around here anyway? I’ve seen multiple people be warned repeatedly for their behavior, and yet I think I’ve seen maybe one person ever get banned, even when the offenders turn around and repeat their bad behavior. Is the policy that you have to do something completely beyond the pale to get booted?
Slarti: but I thought Gonzales’ memo noted repeatedly that Bush had specifically required all prisoners to be treated as if the GCW applied, regardless of whether they did or not.
Then clearly there are a hell of a lot of military personnel in Bagram Airbase, Guantanamo Bay, and Abu Ghraib, whom Bush ought to want out for disobeying such clearly expressed instructions – since they were clearly in violation of Article 17. Also, of Article 48: “In the event of transfer, prisoners of war shall be officially advised of their departure and of their new postal address. Such notifications shall be given in time for them to pack their luggage and inform their next of kin”.
Also, Article 70, which says: “Immediately upon capture, or not more than one week after arrival at a camp, even if it is a transit camp, likewise in case of sickness or transfer to hospital or another camp, every prisoner of war shall be enabled to write direct to his family, on the one hand, and to the Central Prisoners of War Agency provided for in Article 123, on the other hand, a card similar, if possible, to the model annexed to the present Convention, informing his relatives of his capture, address and state of health. The said cards shall be forwarded as rapidly as possible and may not be delayed in any manner.” Also, Article 71, which says: Prisoners of war shall be allowed to send and receive letters and cards. If the Detaining Power deems it necessary to limit the number of letters and cards sent by each prisoner of war, the said number shall not be less than two letters and four cards monthly.
And if US soldiers in Afghanistan, or at the base in Cuba, or in Iraq, are billeted in circumstances similiar to prisoners in Bagram Airbase, or Guantanamo Bay, or Abu Ghraib, I’m surprised there hasn’t been a mutiny – which means, I suspect, that the prison camps are all in violation of Article 28: “Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favourable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area. The said conditions shall make allowance for the habits and customs of the prisoners and shall in no case be prejudicial to their health.”
Slart, good advice.
With regards to Gonzales’ actual memorandum, you’re correct on the point that it stated that “our military remains bound to apply the principles of the GPW because that is what you directed them to do” as well as reiterating (and this was central to his conclusion) that even in cases where the GPW was not applied, we were operating under other constraints such requiring “humane treatment to enemy detainees” as well as other minimal standards including our military regulations (which have incorporated much of GPW already).
Seriously this isn’t controversial stuff but if the Left wants to go off a cliff and pretend that this somehow means we’re going to be breaking out the rack and branding irons, I for one won’t try to disuade them from their chosen form of political suicide.
It is cowardly and patently dishonest to accuse the administration of authorizing “torture” without having the integrity to specify which techniques that were actually authorized somehow qualify as “torture.”
Again, releasing all the documents will help quell the overactive imaginations of Americans who see a connection between the 2002 memos and torture in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Cuba. Just because that’s the only logical conclusion they come to with the available evidence doesn’t make them cowardly. You insist on the impossible here: prove “which techniques…were actually authorized.”…but again the administration won’t release the documents, so…
From where I sit, the exact techiniques need not be explicitly stated to indict the leadership. Sending signals through DOJ memos that the Geneva Conventions are quaint or whatever is evidence enough to the troops that things had changed. Without evidence of the conversations between those committing the torture and their superiors (and their superiors, etc, etc.), yes, only speculation can fill in the blanks, but the torture took place (apparently again and again in multiple locations) and when we look for some explanation as to why, with the existing evidence available, all roads lead back to Gonzales. If that strikes you as “cowardly” to point out, you might explain better how.
debold now.
No it doesn’t, is says only if there is any doubt as to [individual detainees’] status. There is no doubt that Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are not High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Convention . . . nor is their any doubt that they don’t wear uniforms or follow the rules of war.
I hate to hammer on what had apparently been adequately explained by others, but do you not understand that those two sentences are, under the circumstances, entirely unrelated to one another, right? Who is and is not a Party to the Convention does nothing to solve the problem of identifying who is and is not a members of Parties and non-Parties.
You’ve already stipulated that al Qaeda members and Taliban members do not wear identifying uniforms or signs, and I assume you’re conceding to the fact that many people captured and identified as belonging to one of the two proved, in fact, not to be.
Given that, and without us having convened the tribunals in the section that Jesurgislac referenced being resorted to, what method of indentification do you think the U.S. has been relying on such that there has been “no doubt” about these prisoners’ status and we can skip the tribunals? Mind melds?
You’re welcome to lodge complaints with our government, Jesurgislac. Article 28, which you quoted only in part, has other provisions that I’m quite sure are being violated:
Surprising what we can be held to account for.
Slarti: You’re welcome to lodge complaints with our government, Jesurgislac.
Slarti, I was just making the point that if Bush really wanted all prisoners to be treated as if the Geneva Conventions applied*, he was flagrantly disobeyed. Yet he doesn’t seem to be too worried by an en masse act of disobedience. I cited specific examples of Articles which were absolutely not followed, in any format: prisoners were not allowed to inform their families they had been taken prisoner, nor were they told where they were being imprisoned, nor were they allowed to write their legal minimum of letters home. Nor were they housed in circumstances equivalent to how the US soldiers were barracked. So, Bush was systematically disobeyed. Yet he doesn’t appear to care.
*which should certainly have happened, since no competent tribunals were held to determine which prisoners were not entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention.
Surprising what we can be held to account for.
I guess that’s what happens when you sign treaties, huh?
Slarti — whatever man. I’ve been reading comments from TW for I believe more than a year now on this forum, Tacitus, RedState, Crooked Timber IIRC, and one or two other forums — I have read so many of his comments, I reckon it’s possible that a few of them have not been his trademark bilious rage, but if so those few have been in such a minority as to be overwhelmed by the other type, and have not stuck in my memory. He strikes me consistently as the angriest voice among the blogospheric commentors I encounter regularly. I think it’s a bit weird that he is a regular voice here, where the other writers are generally seeking a calmer, more rational debate — I felt that way in “the old days” when OW was predominantly conservative and my impressions have not changed in the current atmosphere. Take my comments for whatever you think they are worth — I am mostly a lurker here and not so distinctly a member of the community — whereas TW is a member of the community and has been all along.
Seriously this isn’t controversial stuff…
Actually, it is. And will continue to be, if we have any say in the matter (which, it seems, we don’t).
I’m doubtless going to get into trouble for saying this, but…
Really now, please point to the specific portion of the memo written by the DOJ that authorized electrodes on genitals.
I’m unfortunately, yet unavoidably, reminded of a mob lawyer defending his capo.
Comments are closed.