Paint CHiPs
Viva Le Me
Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26383 |
Smart people that also like to fancy themselves as "realists" (Simon, TT, for instance) always try to point out that really, we torture anyway--it's just an open secret. I don't buy that entirely. Not that I doubt that the CIA tortures people, or that there is every year incidents within the military somewhere. But the military, as a whole, is pretty clear on where it stands on Article 3--and it's not just lip service to them; they follow it not because "Oh Gosh I guess we have to, at least publically", but because, to them, from a military and strategic standpoint, providing not just a minimum required humane treatment to detainees makes sense, but going above and beyond it is in the military's interest. It's not some legislative shackle that they're constantly laboring under the burden of, in other words--it is, and always has been, not just a matter of moral but practical sense. We've realized that from Washington at Valley Forge all the way up to Bosnia and Somalia under Clinton--it has been policy and default standards of conduct since the inception of this country, and it's Bush that's rolled it back, that's scrapped the status quo.
Humane treatment of enemy combatants is just smart military policy, which is one reason why they resisted, along with the JAGs and the CIA, the administration's overtures to make torture a matter of policy (explicit and unspoken). Also a reason why guys like McCain and Murtha and Clark and Powell and other military men are so out in front on this issue, standing against it in no way two-faced but stern and genuine. It's not the practical military minds that ask for torture, but either psychopathic grunts, or guys like Rumsfeld and Bush and Cheney and other insulated and detached eggheads who can't get past the "ticking timebomb" scenario.
Anyway, a good bit from Andrew Sullivan, quoting the Field Manual.
"Humane treatment of insurgent captives should extend far beyond compliance with Article 3, if for no other reason than to render them more susceptible to interrogation. The insurgent is trained to expect brutal treatment upon capture. If, contrary to what he has been led to believe, this mistreatment is not forthcoming, he is apt to become psychologically softened for interrogation. Furthermore, brutality by either capturing troops or friendly interrogators will reduce defections and serve as grist for the insurgent's propaganda mill," - from the Army Field Manual 34-52.
This may help belie the notion fostered by some that the U.S. has never abided by Article 3 with respect to combatants out of uniform. As Marty Lederman shows, it did for 53 years before the Bush years. Notice how good intelligence, according to the U.S. military, is not procured by brutality but by legal and humane psychological pressure. Notice that the Army doesn't see anything "vague" about these standards, as some of the new authoritarians argue. Notice that the U.S. Army has historically believed Article 3 to be a minimum of decency - and requires beefing up by Americans, not watering down. Notice also that this has always applied to enemies out of uniform, insurgents, guerrillas, including, for example, the Viet Cong. What this administration and its extremist allies are urging would be an assault on decades of humane warfare by the United States and a terrible self-inflicted wound in a war where the moral highground is essential to long-term success. This is among the most vital issues any nation faces: it's about the soul of the West, and the short-sighted expediency of those who think part of it can be sold.
__________________
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
![[new thread]](/images/vb/button_newthread_off.png "Post New Thread")
![[post reply]](/images/vb/button_newreply_off.png "Post A Reply")
07-11-2006 09:16 PM
