Glenn Reynolds has a large compendium of links on the Democratic attempts to nail AG nominee Alberto Gonzales on the issue of torture. Gonzales authored the memo that stated that al-Qaeda and Taliban prisoners were not covered under the Geneva Convention.
I agree with Reynolds, the Democrats are hanging themselves here. Gonzales is correct: a force that does not follow the Conventions has abrogated their rights to be treated under the Convention’s rules. The whole point of having a body of law like the Geneva Convention is that it provides an incentive to follow some basic rules of warfare — giving those protections to those who do not deserve them only encourages others to break those rules. Al-Qaeda does not wear unforms, does not discriminate between military and non-combatants, and does not treat their prisoners humanely.
Politically, the Democrats are fools if they think this issue will do anything but cement their image as being the party of weakness on national security. I’m guessing a majority of Americans have no moral problems with using harsh interrogation techniques against someone like Khalid Sheik Mohammad or Osama bin Laden. Quite frankly, I don’t blame them. The outright prohibition against torture fails on utilitarian grounds – if we’d arrested Mohammad Atta before September 11, 2001 and could use torture to prevent the deaths of thousands, I don’t think that the rights of someone who has abrogated the most basic standards of civilized warfare deserves to be treated in the same way as someone who does. That isn’t a winning argument for the Democrats, and rightly so.
The problem is that torture isn’t necessarily an effective technique. As Porphyrogenitus notes:
Frankly, I’m against torture. But I’m not against harsh interrogation techniques, intimidation and the like. What’s the degree? In some ways it’s a matter of degree. It’s a difference in the level of physicality. On the practical side, I’m not sure it’s effective in getting accurate information – getting people to say what they know rather than just tell you what you want to hear. I’m certainly not sure it’s better than other methods of getting them to talk, psychological pressure and tricks and the like. Sure, you can make anyone talk – almost anyone – and say what you want them to say. But that’s not the same as getting them to tell you the truth.
However, techniques like sleep depravation, sensory depravation, and psychological torture can work and provide life-saving information. We have to realize that in a moral question like this, demanding absolute moral purity is not only impossible, but foolish. Salus populi suprema lex — the ultimate goal of law is the safety of the people. Granted, there needs to be some form of due process to ensure that torture and intimidation isn’t used indesciminately — Alan Dershowitz’s “torture warrant” concept seems a reasonable way to me to reconcile due process with the need to save lives as best we can. Those who demand an absolute ban on torture have to reconcile that with the idea that such a stance could very well cost the lives of thousands of people some day. If we’re talking about a nuclear weapon in New York city, it could be millions of lives. Once that question no longer becomes academic, I would rather stand on the more slippery moral ground of allowing torture than try and reconcile the lives of millions with apply the rules of civilized warfare to those who have categorically rejected them.
Instead of challenging Gonzalez on the grounds of his disregard for the Geneva Conventions, the Democrats should putting up bills requesting our official withdrawal from the accord….or at least challenging Republican colleagues to flatly denounce our role in living up to the conventions. If the superpower of the globe ascribes to the theory that because a terrorist cell without definite state sponsorship doesn’t live up to the Geneva Conventions that we shouldn’t either, the entire agreement isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. Clearly, it’s a losing PR battle for the Democrats to try to convince the red-state voting American majority that we should live up to global warfare conduct guidelines.
If I were a Democrat in Congress, I would agree to vote for the confirmation of Gonzalez, but simultaneously ask for a Republican member of Congress to step up to the plate and co-author legislation to undo the United States role in the Geneva Conventions which you have so eloquently described as made to be broken. If our red-state nation wants to send their sons and daughters to war without any conduct guidelines, let them have it along with “military they get rather than the military they might want.”
Gonzales’ opinion was that terrorists do not operate under the Conventions, therefore they don’t apply to us either. The Geneva Conventions only apply to combatants who follow the rules set down in Article IV for the Conventions – they have to have a chain of command, be in unform or carry a fixed sign, carry arms openly, and conduct their operations under the laws of war. Al-Qaeda does not do that, therefore they aren’t covered under the Articles.
It’s a bilateral process – if you follow the Convention, and the other side is a signatory, that side is bound to follow them too. If you don’t, the other side is under no obligation to do so. Just because al-Qaeda is not covered under the conventions doesn’t mean that we have to throw them out entirely.
Al-Qaeda does not wear unforms, does not discriminate between military and non-combatants, and does not treat their prisoners humanely.
That’s playground logic. Torture saves no lives; it never has. And tu quoque is still a fallacy.
We have to realize that in a moral question like this, demanding absolute moral purity is not only impossible, but foolish.
How could you write something like this and sleep at night? What’s the point of having principles in the first place if they’re simply abandoned when it’s convinient to do so? Of course we must demand moral purity; that’s what it means to be moral.
Those who demand an absolute ban on torture have to reconcile that with the idea that such a stance could very well cost the lives of thousands of people some day.
No, it won’t. Torture provides no useful information. Torture is worse than useless.
Kind of ironic to hear the supporter of a candidate who won based on “moral values” to be suggesting that “demanding moral purity is not only impossible, but foolish.” Yet you wag your finger when those on the left question the sainthood of those who demand moral purity at home. Then again, the values voters probably didn’t have non-Americans in mind when they cast their ballots for Bush on moral issues.
Either way, framing this issue in the context of “moral purity” is a red herring in itself. We signed on the dotted line that we would abide by the Geneva Conventions. To say at this point that we had our fingers crossed tells me we have no business continuing to pretend we want to live up to our end of the bargain. If Merchant A robs the store of Merchant B, it’s still a crime for Merchant B to break into A’s store to exact vengeance. “He started it” would not be an adequate defense for Merchant B in a court of law, nor should it be considered an adequate response for torture apologists in the American government during a time of war. Either abide by the Geneva Conventions as we agreed to or get the hell out of it and appease red-state voters. We can’t have it both ways.
You still don’t understand the Conventions. In order to be protected by the Conventions, you have to follow the Conventions. Al-Qaeda does not follow the rules of warfare, therefore we have no obligation under the Conventions to treat them as POWs. It’s a bilateral treaty, both sides have to follow the rules in order for it to apply.
It is not a tu quoque argument. It is a utilitarian argument that the rights of a person who is in violation of the most basic principles of civilization doesn’t override the rights of thousands to live. Saying that torture has never saved lives is not a provable assertion.
Beating the crap out of someone doesn’t work as an interrogation technique — using drugs or psychological coercision does.
Playing by the Marquis of Queensbury rules against an enemy that has no problem with beheading, diembowling, and dismembering female aid workers is foolish. If putting a bag over someone’s head and shooting them up with sodium pentothal saves lives, it should be done. There’s a difference between being moral and absolute moral purity. I thought that the party of “nuance” would be able to understand such things…
Saying that torture has never saved lives is not a provable assertion.
Do you assert that torture has been sucessfully used in US anti-terror policy? Then substantiate that claim or withdraw it.
You still don’t understand the Conventions.
Actually, it is you who doesn’t understand them. The Geneva Conventions give a limited latitude to punish violations of the conventions via reprisals, but for that reprisal to be legal, the following conventions must be met:
To be legally justified, a reprisal can only be directed against the party carrying out the original violation, can only be carried out as a last resort, after having given formal notice of the planned reprisal, must be proportionate to the original violation, must have the aim of pursuading the original violator to comply with the legally accepted behaviour in future, and must not continue after the illegal behaviour ends.
Moreover:
All four Geneva Conventions prohibit reprisals against, respectively, battlefield casualties, shipwreck survivors, prisoners of war and civilians, as well as certain buildings and property.
Gonzales’s bizarre claim that you have to follow the Conventions for the other side to have to do the same – even though the first side is not a signatory to the conventions, while the second one is – isn’t grounded in any legitimate interpretation of international law, or even law of any kind. For instance even though criminals break the laws, the police that arrest them are still required to follow the law in their prosecution.
The prohibitions of the Geneva Convention are binding, and are not contingent on the other side doing the same. They’re mandatory for any government that is a signatory to the conventions. Gonzales’s assertion and your position are nonsense, and simply aren’t supported by the treaty.
The interrogation of Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammad have led to the arrest of several terrorists worldwide. The French used torture to prevent attacks by Algerian militants during the Algerian Civil War in the 1960s. Italy used the same tactics against the Red Brigades and Germany almost certainly used them against the Baader-Meinhof Gang as well.
The terms under Article IV of the Convention define who is considered a POW. Al-Qaeda does not meet the criteria set in those articles for protection under the Conventions.
The interrogation of Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammad have led to the arrest of several terrorists worldwide. The French used torture to prevent attacks by Algerian militants during the Algerian Civil War in the 1960s. Italy used the same tactics against the Red Brigades and Germany almost certainly used them against the Baader-Meinhof Gang as well.
I don’t find your examples particularly compelling, especially since you don’t give any indication that things were discovered that couldn’t have been obtained through other means. And presumably, since it’s well known that people will lie through torture, whatever they said was checked against other sources of intelligence; and in that case, they didn’t learn anything the intelligence itself wouldn’t have told them.
The moral case against torture is unimpeachable. The practical case against it is self-evident. The legal case against it has stood for centuries. There’s no legitimate argument to be made for torture, and the fact that you’re willing to even countenance it displays how deeply you drank the Kool-Aid – there’s literally no policy a Republican could put forth that you would reject. Bush could announce a new Baby-Eating initiative and you’d be on board; probably with the same flimsy, convoluted rationalizations.
The terms under Article IV of the Convention define who is considered a POW. Al-Qaeda does not meet the criteria set in those articles for protection under the Conventions.
The jump from that to “we can do whatever the fuck we want with these assholes” is wide enough to swallow Rush Limbaugh, but apparently that’s no obstacle at all to people like you. Of course, incumbent on your position is the ability to determine in the first place who is Al-Qaeda and who is not; something I suppose you propose using torture to determine.
Just like all the despots, really. Maybe you can get Saddam’s wood-chippers for cheap.
In the end international law and the Geneva Conventions mean squat unless the vast majority of the international community actually upholds its underlying principles. The US and the Western world has for the most part tried to at least maintain some semblance of an international community, however third world regimes and the terrorist organizations have not only violated these very laws but are actively trying destroy the philosophy from which these laws were created. Essentially these terrorists have chosen to forfeit the rights and protections afforded to them by the geneva conventions in favor of a nihilistic death philosophy. I believe groups such as Al-Quada have made it quite clear that they do not want to exist within the realm of liberal democracies and therefore should not be afforded its protections. As for the argument that torture never works, I’ll defer to the various military and intelligence officers who probably have a better understanding of how to extract information.
Essentially these terrorists have chosen to forfeit the rights and protections afforded to them by the geneva conventions in favor of a nihilistic death philosophy.
Except that’s not how the Geneva Conventions work. They’re not protections offered to the other side in exchange for compliance. They’re proscriptions on the behaviors of its signatories, and those proscriptions are binding and non-negotiable. As a signatory, the US is bound to follow the conventions, whether anybody else does or not. Just as you’re bound to follow US law, like laws against stealing, whether or not anyone has ever stolen from you.
As for the argument that torture never works, I’ll defer to the various military and intelligence officers who probably have a better understanding of how to extract information.
Oh, right. “Trust the government – they are here to protect you.” That always works. Do you think maybe that’s how some of the Iraqis justified Saddam’s behavior? “He must be doing what it takes to keep our country safe.”
I don’t understand why you people can’t see the obvious truth – legitimizing torture by the government is the first of a series of very short steps to despotism.
No, that is not how they work, and Gonzales’ memo simply pointed that out. The Conventions only apply to militants who follow the terms of Article IV of the Conventions. It does not apply to those who don’t.
No, that is not how they work, and Gonzales’ memo simply pointed that out.
That’s exactly how they work. There’s no latitude to ignore the Conventions simply because the other side is not a signatory to them. It simply doesn’t work like that. No law does.
It does not apply to those who don’t.
That’s absolutely false. The Geneva Conventions mandate human treatment to all persons, regardless of their status. While feigning surrender and other acts of perfidy are prohibited under the Conventions, again, no provision is made for the summary execution of perfidous combatants, and such an action would still be against the terms of the Convention.
Just as a kind of asshole question – if the people we’re fighting aren’t lawful combatants, then who did we declar “war” on?
Then you’ve never heard of a little thing called contract law…
Then you’ve never heard of a little thing called contract law…
Al-Qaeda is not a signatory to that contract. Moreover the Conventions are treaties, not contracts. They carry the full force of law and are not contingent on the other side doing anything at all.