Skipping over ‘humiliating and degrading treatment’

June 5, 2006

The LA Times has a very disturbing report today on the [tag]Pentagon[/tag] putting together a guide for troops on how to handle detainees — and leaving a few key details out.

The Pentagon has decided to omit from new [tag]detainee[/tag] [tag]policies[/tag] a key tenet of the Geneva Convention that explicitly bans “humiliating and degrading treatment,” according to knowledgeable military officials, a step that would mark a further, potentially permanent, shift away from strict adherence to international human rights standards.

The decision could culminate a lengthy debate within the Defense Department but will not become final until the Pentagon makes new [tag]guidelines[/tag] public, a step that has been delayed. However, the State Department fiercely opposes the military’s decision to exclude [tag]Geneva Convention[/tag] protections and has been pushing for the Pentagon and White House to reconsider, the Defense Department officials acknowledged.

The internal debate within the administration on this has been going on for far too long. We learned several months ago that in late 2005, Pentagon officials and lawyers were discussing whether Geneva Convention provisions needed to be followed. The decision was pushed off because top Bush administration officials opposed conventions that barred cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment. The debate, alas, is still ongoing.

This need not be complicated. If the president and his team want the world to believe that incidents of [tag]torture[/tag] are “aberrations” and the work of a few “bad apples,” and that the United States follows humane standards, aside from our rendition policies and secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe, then here’s an opportunity to make an unambiguous statement.

“The rest of the world is completely convinced that we are busy torturing people,” said Oona A. Hathaway, an expert in international law at Yale Law School. “Whether that is true or not, the fact we keep refusing to provide these protections in our formal directives puts a lot of fuel on the fire.”

I can’t help but wonder if Bush administration officials know or care about how this undermines our standing and credibility in the world. It’s simply breathtaking. As Kevin put it a while back, “It’s simply impossible to persuade the rest of the world that we’re the good guys as long as we persist in plainly repugnant behavior.”

Yes, it clearly has a horrible effect on our standing and credibility in the world. But even more so, these protections are primarily there to protect our servicemen and women if in fact they are taken prisoner. The moment we toss these standards aside (which we have already done) is the moment our servicefolk are at greater risk and danger. There will be nothing left to protect them in the case of their capture. And the GOP is what, the party of laws, of national defense, of supporting the military? Right.

  • I guess that “degrading and humiliating treatment” must dovetail nicely with the troops new “Ethics Training.” Or not.

  • The Cheney/Rumsfeld axis in this administration sure has a lot of influence, doesn’t it? The irony, of course, is that neither served in the armed forces. That might explain why they can’t see how upholding the Geneva Convention standards may protect our service men and women.

    I’m sure their argument is that today’s enemy isn’t going to abide by Geneva when they capture American soldiers. If we do while the enemy doesn’t, it puts us at a disadvantage. Plus, they probably think that the ME might view us a weaklings if we don’t treat our prisoners poorly. Or that the ME already believes we’re torturing folks (I wonder where they got that idea?), so we’ll not gain anything by abiding by Geneva.

    The GOP likes to portray itself as the morality party. They argue that morality is good for its own sake. But they throw that logic overboard when it comes to Geneva and torture without the slightest recognition of the contradiction. I guess to them moral behavior is something that must be earned by the enemy, and evidently our enemies haven’t earned it. So much for turning the other cheek and loving one’s enemies.

  • I can’t quite figure out what Cheney’s problem is with abiding by the international conventions on cruel and degrading treatment (I’m sure it he who is interferring in the DoD getting the guide right).

    Does he simply hate the idea of the United States actually abiding to international agreements?

    Does he think that torture actually works, like on ’24’, despite all the studies and institutaional knowledge of the U.S. Military that it doesn’t?

    Does he just get off at the idea of beating, threatening and humilating detainees?

    Or maybe he just was so fucking scared on 9/11, thinking the next plane was coming for him, that he is still (five and a half years later) acting out against his preceived enemies!

    And worst of all, if we call him on it, he just calls us traitors and terrorists, even though it is he who is destroying America.

  • What is the difference between sadism and whatever the military wants to call what they are doing? There’s always a solid core of pure perversion running through “torture”. There’s often a focus on genitalia, bowel function and gender identity in addition to pure pain. In order to implement this stuff and also anticipate what will need to be protected, somebody has to think it up. So where is their mind at?

    The torturers are deviants, sadists and perverts and the people above them who offer cover and instruction are right in there with them. It’s about power and control. Torture doesn’t work to accomplish the goal of gathering accurate information. But it’s not only being protected, it’s being expanded and further enabled. Some folks get their ya-ya’s out with this stuff. Some are in the military. Some rank high in gov’t. Some hang out in dark clubs wearing wierd make-up and playing with wierd toys. But there’s a common thread that runs through them all. They like to hurt and humiliate. Just because it’s done in the name of national security doesn’t change the underlying freakiness and the enjoyment some derive from the suffering of others.

  • Oh, and by this sort of conduct/policies, Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice et al become more and more like Saddam Hussein.

  • I’m surprised they didn’t eschew humiliation in the document and then just have Bush do a signing statement on it. Why court such bad publicity when they have their enormous hypocrisy to rely on? Maybe they think it will scare the terrorists.

  • Kurzleg,

    A point of correction: According to his official bio, Rumsfeld served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57).

    Of course, his military doesn’t make him any less of a dunderhead or any less of a callous SOB.

  • A point of correction: According to his official bio, Rumsfeld served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57).

    Of course, his military doesn’t make him any less of a dunderhead or any less of a callous SOB.

    Comment by slip kid no more — 6/5/2006 @ 11:25 am

    Thanks for the correction. I wasn’t sure about him, but I spouted off anyway.

  • I read Rumsfeld’s bio plus the Wikipedia entry for him:

    “He served in the U.S. Navy from 1954 to 1957 as an aviator and flight instructor, training in North American SNJ basic trainers and later flying Grumman F6F. fighters. In 1957, he transferred to the Ready Reserve and continued his Naval service in flying and administrative assignments as a drilling reservist until 1975. He transferred to the Standby Reserve when he became Secretary of Defense in 1975 and to the Retired Reserve with the rank of Navy Captain in 1989.”

    So I was unfair to him, but in getting set straight I’m even more perplexed as to why he’d be against Geneva. Pilots are normally very sensitive to how Geneva potentially protects them from torture. Maybe the fact that he was never a combat pilot has something to do with all this.

  • Where’s the What Would Jesus Do crowd in all of this? I guess the religious right won’t take a stand because a fetus is not involved. Maybe if these prisoners were labeled as “fully evolved fetuses” they might give a damn.

    Add to the list all the citizens of the U.S. that re degraded and humiliated by these acts done in their name.

  • “Where’s the What Would Jesus Do crowd in all of this?” Taking courses in snake handling, hellfire-and-brimstone preaching, having extramarital affairs, abusing children, etc.

  • “Where’s the What Would Jesus Do crowd in all of this?”
    Comment by petorado — 6/5/2006 @ 11:44 am

    It’s called compartmentalization. The Bible’s teachings apply in some situations and not in others. Do you really think that Jesus had Muslim terrorists in mind when he said “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”?

  • Do you really think that Jesus had Muslim terrorists in mind when he said “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”? – Kurzleg

    Considering that the Romans were crucifying Jews by the job lot at the time, yes.

  • The Pentagon’s rationale for this change is just laughable:

    The directive on interrogations, a senior Defense official said, is being rewritten to create safeguards so that detainees are treated humanely but can still be questioned effectively.

    And it appears there’s a civil war of sorts brewing in the Administration. Condi doesn’t like it:

    However, 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, Defense officials acknowledged.

    But look who does:

    The protections for detainees in Article 3 go beyond the McCain amendment by prohibiting humiliation, treatment that falls short of cruelty or torture. However, the move to restore U.S. adherence to Article 3 was opposed by Vice President Dick Cheney’s office and by the Pentagon’s intelligence arm, government sources said.

  • Do you really think that Jesus had Muslim terrorists in mind when he said “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”? – Kurzleg

    Considering that the Romans were crucifying Jews by the job lot at the time, yes.

    Comment by Lance — 6/5/2006 @ 1:16 pm

    Yeah, that was my point. Another case of attempted sarcasm retaining only the “attempted” portion.

  • “Another case of attempted sarcasm retaining only the “attempted” portion” – Kurzleg

    Always type ‘semicolon’, ‘dash’, ‘close bracket’ to smiley sarcasm 😉

    Besides, the joy of sarcasm is the occasional ability of the reader to take it as straight and respond as such.

  • I knew the “Wehrmachtization” of the American military was only a matter of time when they replaced the Steel Pot of Liberation with the old Nazi “coal scuttle” helmet (even if it is made of Kevlar).

    A few years ago, I had occasion to do research on American treatment of POWs during WW2. We provided the absolute “spirit of the law” interpretation of the Geneva Accords – not just the letter of the law – because we wanted to be in a position to be able to morally criticize the Nazis for any failure to treat Allied POWs properly (of course, we fell down on the treatment of Soviet POWs by the Nazis).

    So, with this sort of rule in effect, how do we protect our own troops from this sort of behavior? Shout “do as we say, not as we do”?????

    And that the top echelons of the American military would not only go along on with this but create it and promote it…. well, now everyone can see why my old friend the late David Hackworth used to rail against “the perfumed princes of Versailles-on-the-Potomac.”

    This is just sickening. We put these “rules” forth for an army of the otherwise-unemployable, raised on first-person-shooter video games and then are surprised when the Hadithas happen??????

  • Tom,
    hey, my “coal scuttle” k-pot kept my brains from getting bashed when I got hit in the head with a tree branch while in the back of a five-ton, somehting the old steel pot I had in Basic at Ft. Benning would never had done.

    Anyway, you are absoluting right about the treatment German prisoners recieved by the Americans. In many cases, even better than black soldiers recieved by the general population.
    Another reason for the humane treatment of prisoners is that when an enemy knows that they will be treated well, they tend to see surrender as a more viable option. Despite the impression most here in the West have of the “radical Islamist” hell bent on dying for their cause, I would garner to say that the majority of insurgents and groups fighting the US would be more willing to give up, if they knew they would be well cared for.
    If, on the other hand, they are convinced that if they are captured, they will be subjected to either torture or forced into inhumane conditions, they would be more willing to fght to the death than give up.

    Just an opinion

  • Uh, let me expand on that. I believe that most potential volunteers don’t want to torture prisoners.

    Bush and Cheney should torture those guys themselves and stop ordering American soldiers to do it.

  • I would think another reason this would hurt recruiting is the fact that the only people who were punished for Abu Ghraib were the lower enlisted who I’m sure were told by their higher-ups to “rough up” the prisoners.
    Why would I join the military if there’s a good chance I’ll be left high and dry by my leadership?

  • 2Manchu: I have no idea. As if there weren’t enough reasons not to join right now, honor is being written out of the book and then you’re going to jail for following orders.

    • Comments are closed.