THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

nimh

Absolute common sense as usual.

But you overlook one thing. The Americans just don't see it that way. Rules are for other people to obey, and for Americans to ignore if they so wish.

And so, how do I know that Ican and Fox (even aside from the time lapse) have chosen not to read Danner's piece nor gone to any of the footnoted links? Your confidence is built upon a poverty of information and a lack of courage to challenge your preferred beliefs. Both of you restrict your reading sources to a narrow band of palatable ideas and that too evident fact is reflected with repetition every day on every thread.

If either of you are truly interested in engaging the legal and moral questions of Abu Ghraib and of this administration's prosecution of prisoner treatment, you'll take on something like Dworkin HERE, and you'll take it on with dilligence.

But those measures do violate the basic principle of shared humanity that underlies them all.

They violate that fundamental principle because they follow a strategy of putting American safety absolutely first, a strategy that recommends any measure that improves American security against terrorism even marginally or speculatively, or that improves the cost-efficiency or convenience of America's anti-terrorism campaign, without counting the harm or unfairness of that measure to its victims.[14] America followed that strategy in interning Japanese-Americans—the benefit to security of that wholesale detention was minimal and the damage it inflicted on its victims was enormous —and we look back on that episode with great national embarrassment.[15] Of course every government has a special responsibility to look after its own citizens' safety, and a nation may, when necessary, use violence in self-defense. But the harm it deliberately inflicts on others must be comparable to the harm it thereby prevents to its own people, and when our government shows itself ready to impose grave harm on foreigners or on suspected Americans for only speculative, marginal, or remote benefits to the rest of us, its action presupposes that their lives count for nothing compared to ours.

The Declaration of Independence
(Adopted in Congress 4 July 1776)
...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Quote:

These constraints of fair criminal procedure and these humane rules of war are important not just when a nation's constitution or its treaty obligations make them binding, but because a very large community of civilized nations thinks that either they or closely similar constraints are necessary to prevent criminal prosecution or war from becoming a crude sacrifice of some people for the sake of others, a sacrifice that would ravage rather than respect the idea of shared humanity.

from Dworkin

The claim and threat advanced by the administration is that those imprisoned and those not yet captured and held are out to destroy our freedoms and our values. But the fact and the irony is that they cannot do this. It can only be attempted by them. And it can only be accomplished by us ourselves.

The rules are there. The "litany of sins" you complain of is merely the observation of as many cases of (alleged or proven) transgression of those laws and rules. The Red Cross is not asking you to make up good, new rules - it is merely requesting you to stick to the ones that are already there.

There is zero proof for all the accusations you understand; there is only innuendo, speculation, and some proved incidents of prisoner mistreatment and some unproven testimony from persons claiming to have been mistreated. (Most of the latter came forward after monetary compensation became a possibility.)

... those of us who think the lives and security of millions of innocent citizens are more important than [what a terrorist is subjected to]; those of us who think that domestic laws and the Geneva Convention will not be effective in interrogating people committed to murder us, say let's agree on what is acceptable. Then if the president or whomever oversteps the limits, we at least have something concrete to complain about.

I don't think the U.S. had any previously standard of law designed to deal with imprisonment and/or interrogation of large numbers of terrorists until 9/11. We had no reason to have such a standard as the laws for treatment of domestic prisoners and prisoners-of-war had previously sufficed. So the laws are being developed now amidst the howls of those who are certain our national leaders are incompetent, unconscionable, sadistic monsters with no moral compass whatsoever.

There is zero proof for all the accusations you understand; there is only innuendo, speculation, and some proved incidents of prisoner mistreatment and some unproven testimony from persons claiming to have been mistreated.

Meanwhile those of us who think people should be mad at terrorists instead of the president when terrorist acts are done;

The International Red Cross has allegedly determined which of our prisoners in Iraq are guilty of serious crimes and may be dangerous and which may not be dangerous. How was this determination made?

One moral imperative is:
Treat others the way you want to be treated and do not treat others the way you do not want to be treated. A clear implication of that moral imperative is: protect the innocent as you would want others to protect you if you were innocent and wanted protection.

I can't agree with inflicting pain even short of maiming or mutilating.

Why do new laws need to be developed? Why would the laws for treatment of domestic prisoners not suffice, for example?

Why would the interrogation of an Iraqi insurgent require new laws and new interrogation methods when they were apparently not needed for Tim McVeigh or the Unabomber?

What about the Taguba report? That's a US general, that - if that is not a trusted source, what is?

What about the Red Cross report?

I am mad at terrorists when terrorist acts are done.

I am mad at the US president - the Commander in Chief - when his troops commit torture -- or when his government officials prepare memos on how to duck the requirements of international laws and conventions.

In any case, the point here, I think, was that the guilt of these suspects was indeed not ascertained, and that it might not be a good idea to apply shock treatments to those who might very well be innocent.

It might, after all, be instructive to remember that - for obvious reasons - very, very, very few of those held in US custody were "video taped in an act of terrorism". If only life were that simple. So I'll just tick that one off as mere rhetorics.

No violence against those who might well still turn out to be innocent.

nimh wrote:

Why do new laws need to be developed? Why would the laws for treatment of domestic prisoners not suffice, for example?

Because domestic prisoners are citizens of our country and did not pledge to kill all Americans "whereever you find them."

At the time of their arrest, both criminals were citizens entitled by the laws of our country to be treated as innocent until proven guilty

nimh wrote:

What about the Taguba report? That's a US general, that - if that is not a trusted source, what is?

I inferred from other of your posts that you thought the entire US military was suspect and not to be trusted

nimh wrote:

What about the Red Cross report?

What about it? Ought anyone believe their conclusions [..] unless their claims are in agreement with one's own preconceived notions?

Are you equally mad with either, or are you more mad at the US President, or are you more mad at terrorist acts?

And all of those suspects held in US custody you are proposing to interrogate by inflicting with pain have pledged to do so? Or is that just your inference based on your suspicion that they are followers of someone who did?

My point was: if the interrogation methods proscribed by our national laws suffice to retrieve information that could "save thousands of our fellow countrymen" from US citizens, why wouldn't they suffice to retrieve the same kind of information from non-citizens?

ican711nm wrote:

At the time of their arrest, both criminals were citizens entitled by the laws of our country to be treated as innocent until proven guilty

It is my belief that the same principle should be upheld when apprehending people who do not happen to have a US passport.

So, what about the Taguba report? Fox said "There is zero proof for all the accusations". But there's this US General that wrote a report about it, right?

Yes. The Red Cross has shown itself, over the past century, to be one of the most stringently and consistently neutral observers in the world, much more so than any national government, whether yours or mine.

More mad at the terrorist attacks. Duh.

nimh wrote:

Yes. The Red Cross has shown itself, over the past century, to be one of the most stringently and consistently neutral observers in the world, much more so than any national government, whether yours or mine.

That seems to have been true in the 20th century. I'm unsure about that in the 21st century.

nimh wrote:

More mad at the terrorist attacks. Duh.

You sure fooled me! From much of your rhetoric, I inferred that you thought that our government was the real villain.

If the debate here ever gets past whether those terrorists are deserving of more consideration than are the people they intend to make targets, and if the debate ever gets past the rhetoric that the current U.S. administration are sadistic tools of Satan with no moral center of any kind, and we can actually discuss what we think should actually be done re interrogating terrorists, I would be interested in joining that debate.

Otherwise I hate repeating myself.