POL - Army Handbook sans Geneva dialogue

[Flasch186]

The reason Im pointing this out is I thought that one of the platforms of the Gitmo argument and Abu argument, that it was a few bad apples, and NOT an environment created by higher ups (which eventual reports from even Army officers debunked) was that the manual and training is the tenet to hold soldiers up to. My question is: Is removing this standard or sentence an omission that, in retrospect, sheds light on the minimalization of these tenets in the past? IOW, were they skimmed over very quickly in the past because they weren't important and now they are so much so that they might as well be taken out?


Pentagon to omit Geneva ban from new army manual: report

Mon Jun 5, 8:49 AM ET

LOS ANGELES (AFP) - New policies on prisoners being drawn up by the
Pentagon will reportedly omit a key tenet of the Geneva Convention that explicitly bans "humiliating and degrading treatment."
""

Citing unidentified but knowledgeable military officials, the Los Angeles Times said the step would mark a further, potentially permanent, shift by the US government away from strict adherence to international human rights standards.

The decision could end a lengthy debate within the Defense Department but will not become final until the Pentagon makes the new guidelines public, the report said.

The State Department fiercely opposes the military's decision to exclude Geneva Convention protections and has been pushing for the Pentagon and White House to reconsider, the paper pointed out.

The Pentagon has been redrawing its policies on detainees for more than a year.

It intends to issue a new Army Field Manual on interrogation which, along with accompanying directives, represents core instructions to US troops around the world, The Times said.

The directive on interrogation, a senior defense official said, is being rewritten to create safeguards so that all detainees are treated humanely but can still be questioned effectively, according to the report.

Critics and supporters of
President George W. Bush have debated whether it is possible to prove a direct link between administration declarations that it will not be bound by the Geneva Convention, and events such as the abuses at
Abu Ghraib or the killings of Iraqi civilians last year in Haditha, The Times said.

Omitting the Geneva provisions may make it harder for the administration to portray such incidents as aberrations, the paper noted, saying it would also undercut contentions that US forces follow the strictest, most broadly accepted standards when fighting wars.

[NoMyths]

*shakes head*

[SirFozzie]

Once again, the Bush administration (not republicans.. just Bush and his group) don't want any restrictions that might restrict their possible actions should it be necessary to "fight terrorism"

[SirFozzie]

BTW, nice to see the ABA deciding to review Bush's 750+ signing statements to see if it violates the balance of powers (yes, other presidents have used it, but all other presidents combined is less than Bush's total)

[duckman]

I'll sorely disappointed if this actually comes to be, but I think it would be best to wait until the manual is made public before we start going on a tangent over this.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

The fact it's even being discussed is disgraceful.

Of course, with this, the U.S. loses any moral authority to denounce other nations who may humiliate and degrade U.S. prisoners; not to mention increasing the chance that such treatment will occur. Well done.

[gstelmack]

Of course, with this, the U.S. loses any moral authority to denounce other nations who may humiliate and degrade U.S. prisoners; not to mention increasing the chance that such treatment will occur. Well done.

Look, I'm not happy about starting down a slippery slope, but lets be honest here: "humiliating and degrading" U.S. prisoners has always been the LEAST of our concerns. More recently let's try "beheading" as our primary concern about what someone does to U.S. prisonsers.

[QuikSand]

Look, I'm not happy about starting down a slippery slope, but lets be honest here: "humiliating and degrading" U.S. prisoners has always been the LEAST of our concerns. More recently let's try "beheading" as our primary concern about what someone does to U.S. prisonsers.

As long as there are bad guys out there, we should grant license to our forces to act in any way they see fit? No, I don't think so.

I think it is exceedingly important to stand for something, and humane treatment of prisoners is one of those things that you do for two reasons -- you do it because it is the correct way to operate a civil society, even in times of conflict, by respecting human rights... and you do it out of prudence, because down the road, it's eventually going to be your guys who get caught, and the less you respect others' humanity, the less yours will be respected in turn.

It's understandably challenging to maintain this view in light of specific enemies who engage in acts of terror, target civilians, and commit atrocities like you mention. But it's still the absolutely right thing to do. Dropping to the moral level of the worst conceivable enemy simply concedes the moral ground that we stand for something that they do not.

[oliegirl]

As long as there are bad guys out there, we should grant license to our forces to act in any way they see fit? No, I don't think so.

I think it is exceedingly important to stand for something, and humane treatment of prisoners is one of those things that you do for two reasons -- you do it because it is the correct way to operate a civil society, even in times of conflict, by respecting human rights... and you do it out of prudence, because down the road, it's eventually going to be your guys who get caught, and the less you respect others' humanity, the less yours will be respected in turn.

It's understandably challenging to maintain this view in light of specific enemies who engage in acts of terror, target civilians, and commit atrocities like you mention. But it's still the absolutely right thing to do. Dropping to the moral level of the worst conceivable enemy simply concedes the moral ground that we stand for something that they do not.


But what if you were Jack Bauer and you had to save the world (yet again) and the only way to do so was to participate in inhumane treatment of a prisoner(s)?

[oliegirl]

Dola:

If you were Jack, could I be your Chloe?

[oliegirl]

Dola Dola:

I've never tazered anyone and it looks like fun

[oliegirl]

Dola Dola Dola:

But I'd have to find some cuter clothes and less manly looking shoes...someone needs to find that girl a stylist!

[gstelmack]

As long as there are bad guys out there, we should grant license to our forces to act in any way they see fit? No, I don't think so.

I think it is exceedingly important to stand for something, and humane treatment of prisoners is one of those things that you do for two reasons -- you do it because it is the correct way to operate a civil society, even in times of conflict, by respecting human rights... and you do it out of prudence, because down the road, it's eventually going to be your guys who get caught, and the less you respect others' humanity, the less yours will be respected in turn.

It's understandably challenging to maintain this view in light of specific enemies who engage in acts of terror, target civilians, and commit atrocities like you mention. But it's still the absolutely right thing to do. Dropping to the moral level of the worst conceivable enemy simply concedes the moral ground that we stand for something that they do not.

At no point did my statement disagree with anything you said, and in fact I said I was uncomfortable with this. I'm arguing against those who said "allowing this makes it more likely that our prisoners will be abused", when the Geneva convention has never stopped them before and isn't stopping them now. I also resent the comparison of "humiliation and degradation" to the beheadings going on now and some of the other atrocities committed to prisoners in the past.

But I agree 100% that as a "beacon of liberty", it is our responsibility to take the moral highground wherever possible. Just because they do it doesn't mean we should do it.

[flere-imsaho]

But what if you were Jack Bauer and you had to save the world (yet again) and the only way to do so was to participate in inhumane treatment of a prisoner(s)?

This argument can be used for a lot of things.

For instance, why not let the government listen to your phone calls and read your email because of that one time they do this and manage to catch a terrorist?

Why not let the government detain anyone, regardless of citizenship, indefinitely, on the off chance one of these people turns out to be a terrorist?

Why not require that one must acquire a travel permit before flying on a plane, so that we can be sure terrorists (known ones, at least) don't fly planes?


It is my belief that true, lasting security is not achieved through the establishment of an Orwellian State, one that is free to control every aspect of its citizens lives, and engage in any activity it wishes, no matter how tangential to the pursuit of security that may be.

True, lasting security in this age of terrorism may simply not be 100% achievable if one wishes to keep alive the central tenets of liberty, not to mention affirming the basic moral principles of humanity. But I'd rather live in a society that holds true to these basic principles, then sacrifice it all for a little more security.