Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Retroactive war crime protection proposed By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer
10 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration drafted amendments to the War Crimes Act that would retroactively protect policymakers from possible criminal charges for authorizing any humiliating and degrading treatment of detainees, according to lawyers who have seen the proposal.
The move by the administration is the latest effort to deal with treatment of those taken into custody in the war on terror.
At issue are interrogations carried out by theCIA, and the degree to which harsh tactics such as water-boarding were authorized by administration officials. A separate law, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, applies to the military.
The Washington Post first reported on the War Crimes Act amendments Wednesday.
One section of the draft would outlaw torture and inhuman or cruel treatment, but it does not contain prohibitions from Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions against "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." A copy of the section of the draft was obtained by The Associated Press.
Another section would apply the legislation retroactively, according to two lawyers who have seen the contents of the section and who spoke on condition of anonymity because their sources did not authorize them to release the information.
One of the two attorneys said that the draft is in the revision stage but that the administration seems intent on pushing forward the draft's major points in Congress after Labor Day.
"I think what this bill can do is in effect immunize past crimes. That's why it's so dangerous," said a third attorney, Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice.
Fidell said the initiative is "not just protection of political appointees, but also CIA personnel who led interrogations."
Interrogation practices "follow from policies that were formed at the highest levels of the administration," said a fourth attorney, Scott Horton, who has followed detainee issues closely. "The administration is trying to insulate policymakers under the War Crimes Act."
The Bush administration contends Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions includes a number of vague terms that are susceptible to different interpretations.
Extreme interrogation practices have been a flash point for criticism of the administration.
When interrogators engage in waterboarding, prisoners are strapped to a plank and dunked in water until nearly drowning.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), R-S.C., said Congress "is aware of the dilemma we face, how to make sure the CIA and others are not unfairly prosecuted."
He said that at the same time, Congress "will not allow political appointees to waive the law."
Larry Cox, Amnesty International USA's executive director, said that
" President Bush is looking to limit the War Crimes Act through legislation" now that the Supreme Court has embraced Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. In June, the court ruled that Bush's plan to try Guantanamo Bay detainees in military tribunals violates Article 3.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Yeah, making those prisoners strip down and jump in a big pile is certainly worth at least the death penalty. Right up there with bamboo splints under the fingernails and beheading.
Yeah, making those prisoners strip down and jump in a big pile is certainly worth at least the death penalty. Right up there with bamboo splints under the fingernails and beheading.
LIAC, it's not nearly as simple as saying W's abdicating his conservative sense of personal responsibility, not even close. This would actually make for a good discussion about the extent to which the War Crimes Act and quaint Geneva Conventions apply in the War on Terror, and judicial oversight of general Executive rule making authority, etc... etc...
And the jackboots get bigger and grow in number... sigh.
__________________
At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
Yeah, making those prisoners strip down and jump in a big pile is certainly worth at least the death penalty. Right up there with bamboo splints under the fingernails and beheading.
The MPs (military police) I know that have seen videos in training on torture used at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib don't think that the torture was nothing.
The public is given the sanitized version. Some of the torture was more than just degrading and humiliating. You Republicans think we should stoop to the terrorists level. What makes us any better than them if we stoop to their level? We've always strived to be better, not only strategically and tactically but morally/ethically than our enemy. Why stop now? Because our enemy beheads people? Is that as bad as trying to kill off an entire race of people?
__________________
26-year-old Saermengsi last season rated average 25.1 minutes, with 7.5 hours, 2.7 times and 2.7 backboard secondary attack, he Yifusen general as the replacement came in March Yifusen injuries ever period of time, three matches in a row, his secondary attack will reach 10. By Sun team, he could strengthen outer lane line, but also as the replacement fullback scored his general customary activities in the stadium two wings. On the season Saermengsi-ball hit rate reached 30%. He was in flames and Jones made a three-year teammate, Jones said that the organizers he pitches, but he can also shooting. His shooting is deceptive.
What makes us any better than them if we stoop to their level? We've always strived to be better, not only strategically and tactically but morally/ethically than our enemy. Why stop now?
The MPs (military police) I know that have seen videos in training on torture used at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib don't think that the torture was nothing.
The public is given the sanitized version. Some of the torture was more than just degrading and humiliating. You Republicans think we should stoop to the terrorists level. What makes us any better than them if we stoop to their level? We've always strived to be better, not only strategically and tactically but morally/ethically than our enemy. Why stop now? Because our enemy beheads people? Is that as bad as trying to kill off an entire race of people?
The MPs (military police) I know that have seen videos in training on torture used at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib don't think that the torture was nothing.
The public is given the sanitized version. Some of the torture was more than just degrading and humiliating. You Republicans think we should stoop to the terrorists level. What makes us any better than them if we stoop to their level? We've always strived to be better, not only strategically and tactically but morally/ethically than our enemy. Why stop now? Because our enemy beheads people? Is that as bad as trying to kill off an entire race of people?
Krang, you are probably privy to more info than we have seen, but from the pictures I've seen, humiliation maybe, but definetly not torture.
Who would you rather be captured by, the Muslim extremists or the US Army?
Last edited by 40yearfan; August 9th, 2006 at 09:40 PM.
No secrets here. As far as I know it's always been said that quite a bit more than humiliation hapened there. Some members of the right framed the situation as fratboy hijinks, but the reality was much worse.
My suggestion is simple. If you reject the brutality then you are not a party to it. I don't view it as my shame per se and I don't believe for a second that the crimes were carried out to protect my best interests.
Forgetting for a moment who's the more barbaric (really a silly question to ask)--should the soldier who might have captured al-Zarqawi, or the CIA operative actually tasked with "debriefing" al-Libbi be charged with a war crime for doing everything imaginable to extract information from him? Or even common MP's, who are to interrogate AQ in Iraq we capture and who we know have details on bomb-making factories used to intentionally mangle civilians?
I agree that in a conventional war, foot soldiers should not be tortured. It's a war, and they try to kill our soldiers, we try to kill theirs. Fair enough. We certainly shouldn't have tortured the run-of-the-mill German we caught in the Arden. But the situation we're in now is completely different.
Quote:
What makes us any better than them if we stoop to their level? We've always strived to be better, not only strategically and tactically but morally/ethically than our enemy. Why stop now? Because our enemy beheads people? Is that as bad as trying to kill off an entire race of people?
And Krang, that's really nonsensical. We are however trying to kill off an entire offshoot of Muslims devoted to the killing of us. Do you see a problem with that?
Forgetting for a moment who's the more barbaric (really a silly question to ask)--should the soldier who might have captured al-Zarqawi, or the CIA operative actually tasked with "debriefing" al-Libbi be charged with a war crime for doing everything imaginable to extract information from him?
Yes, they should. They've been trained not to, and it violates US law which all US soldiers and government employees have been tasked with protecting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolobotomy
Or even common MP's, who are to interrogate AQ in Iraq we capture and who we know have details on bomb-making factories used to intentionally mangle civilians?
MPs don't interrogate. They serve as police and prisoner guards. They aren't trained to interrogate. That job is don't by 97E (interrogators) and 97B (counterintelligence agents). MPs are almost infantry, so they really shouldn't be doing that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolobotomy
I agree that in a conventional war, foot soldiers should not be tortured. It's a war, and they try to kill our soldiers, we try to kill theirs. Fair enough. We certainly shouldn't have tortured the run-of-the-mill German we caught in the Arden. But the situation we're in now is completely different.
War is war. The battlefield might change, and the enemies tactics might change, but we still fight them the same. And we treat the Hajis the same way we treat the Krauts. Those Krauts might have information on major German offensives that could kill an entire battalion. There is no difference, except that the armies are much more effective at killing than terrorists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolobotomy
And Krang, that's really nonsensical. We are however trying to kill off an entire offshoot of Muslims devoted to the killing of us. Do you see a problem with that?
How so? I'll kill those who try to kill my brothers, but I won't violate the Constitution that I swore to protect. That's my problem with your argument, you basically believe we should violate what we are supposed to hold sacred.
__________________
26-year-old Saermengsi last season rated average 25.1 minutes, with 7.5 hours, 2.7 times and 2.7 backboard secondary attack, he Yifusen general as the replacement came in March Yifusen injuries ever period of time, three matches in a row, his secondary attack will reach 10. By Sun team, he could strengthen outer lane line, but also as the replacement fullback scored his general customary activities in the stadium two wings. On the season Saermengsi-ball hit rate reached 30%. He was in flames and Jones made a three-year teammate, Jones said that the organizers he pitches, but he can also shooting. His shooting is deceptive.
Yes, they should. They've been trained not to, and it violates US law which all US soldiers and government employees have been tasked with protecting.
MPs don't interrogate. They serve as police and prisoner guards. They aren't trained to interrogate. That job is don't by 97E (interrogators) and 97B (counterintelligence agents). MPs are almost infantry, so they really shouldn't be doing that.
War is war. The battlefield might change, and the enemies tactics might change, but we still fight them the same. And we treat the Hajis the same way we treat the Krauts. Those Krauts might have information on major German offensives that could kill an entire battalion. There is no difference, except that the armies are much more effective at killing than terrorists.
How so? I'll kill those who try to kill my brothers, but I won't violate the Constitution that I swore to protect. That's my problem with your argument, you basically believe we should violate what we are supposed to hold sacred.
I suppose I see a big distinction between wars between states (where there is some possibility rules of engagement will be followed on both sides) and terrorism, something you don't agree with. I also believe cops should beat the hell out of very bad guys they know are guilty, but will walk without a confession. Under some circumstances, expediency trumps principle in my mind. And on MP's, I'm sure you're right as far as job description--amend my post to say "interrogators."
And I took your earlier post to insinuate we're trying to kill an entire race of people. Perhaps that's not what you meant.
Linear Mode
