A Few Good Men . . . Left
On Friday, July 20, President Bush issued an executive order that seems designed mainly to protect members of his administration from prosecution once he leaves office. At least, that’s the most charitable interpretation I can put on it. The order interprets Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions in such a way that torture by the CIA during interrogation of suspected terrorists is, by definition, not torture. Under the order, “willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse” are considered torture only if they are “done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual in a manner so serious that any reasonable person, considering the circumstances, would deem the acts to be beyond the bounds of human decency.” If done for selfless reasons--say, obtaining intelligence on potential terrorist attacks or extricating information on the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden--the same acts are no longer to be considered torture.
Bush’s action has largely escaped scrutiny, but two former Reagan appointees have had the courage to call a spade a spade. In the Washington Post on July 25, former Marine Corps commandant P.X. Kelley and Reagan White House lawyer Robert F. Turner, while offering their general support even for “many other controversial aspects of the war on terrorism” (such as “warrantless National Security Agency wiretaps"), declared that “we cannot in good conscience defend a decision that we believe has compromised our national honor and that may well promote the commission of war crimes by Americans and place at risk the welfare of captured American military forces for generations to come.”
This is what defenders of the Bush administration fail to comprehend: The Geneva Conventions of 1949 were designed to protect all of the signatories, who agreed to place limits on their own actions both because it is the right thing to do and because doing so offers protection to our own fighting men. When we gratuitously misinterpret the Conventions for our own purposes, our signature becomes of no value. To whom will we turn when others, acting in their own limited interests, choose to do the same?
Iraq war | Nationalism | Terrorism | Torture
Comments
Who here thinks the neocons would not approve of torture of a paleocon if they thought it would further “important” ends?
Not I.
We should opposse these laws for a variety of reasons, not the least of which they probably will be turned on one of us someday.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Not to mention all the other methods of assassination, kidnapping, internment, riot control, propaganda, blackmail and intimidation the cia spooks are practicing over there. They will all be employed back here in the States at some point. My favorite dystopian nightmare is the non-citizen mercenary army that returns from Iraq, willing to help “control” unruly US citizens, in exchange for citizenship and a big fat gubmint pension. Soon we won’t be a nation any longer, just another province in the global plantation.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give Taki's Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. Personal attacks, ethnic slurs, the riding of hobby horses and the beating of dead ones will be deleted as soon as they are detected by our small but alert staff. Repeat abusers of this policy will be barred from leaving comments. All comments reflect only the views of those posting them and not necessarily those of this website, its editors, or authors. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
Commenting is not available in this section entry.