Double Standards- U.S. and the Geneva Convention

[Chewbacca]

OMG my head is spinning. Are some of the U.S. interrogation techniques used in Iraq a violation of the Geneva convention or are they not? It seems they are both..... depending on who you ask.

Link

Double Standards

Friday, May 14, 2004; Page A24


SEN. JACK REED (D-R.I.) asked two senior Pentagon officials exactly the right question yesterday about the Bush administration's interpretation of the Geneva Conventions. "If you were shown a video of a United States Marine or an American citizen in control of a foreign power, in a cell block, naked with a bag over their head, squatting with their arms uplifted for 45 minutes, would you describe that as a good interrogation technique or a violation of the Geneva Convention?" The answer is obvious, and Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, honestly provided it. "I would describe it as a violation," Mr. Pace said. "What you've described to me sounds to me like a violation of the Geneva Convention," Mr. Wolfowitz said.


Case closed -- except that the practices described by Mr. Reed have been designated by the commanding general of U.S. forces in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, as available for use on Iraqi detainees, and certified by the Pentagon as legal under the Geneva Conventions. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, they have been systematically applied to prisoners across that country. And earlier this week, the bosses of both Mr. Pace and Mr. Wolfowitz, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard B. Myers, defended the techniques as appropriate.

Mr. Rumsfeld repeated that defense yesterday. "Anyone who's running around saying the Geneva Convention did not apply in Iraq is either terribly uninformed or mischievous," he told reporters during his visit to Iraq. He has said that the administration accepted that the conventions applied in Iraq, unlike in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where suspected Taliban fighters and al Qaeda terrorists are being held. The question, though, is whether the conventions were followed in Iraq or whether they were systematically violated, as the Red Cross and many war crimes lawyers in and outside the U.S. military have concluded. Mr. Rumsfeld brushed off those conclusions. "Geneva doesn't say what you do when you get up in the morning," he declared. "Some will say . . . it is mental torture to do something that is inconvenient in a certain way for a detainee, like standing up for a long period . . . someone else might say [it] is not in any way abusive or harmful."

Now Mr. Pace and Mr. Wolfowitz have said the techniques approved by Mr. Sanchez would be illegal if used on Americans; Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Myers say they are fine as applied to Iraqis. But there are not separate Geneva Conventions for Americans and for the rest of the world. We learned this week that the Pentagon approved the use of hooding, stress positions, sleep deprivation, intimidation by dogs and prolonged solitary confinement as legal under the Geneva Conventions. By defending that policy, Mr. Rumsfeld is further harming America's reputation while sanctioning the use of similar techniques on captured Americans around the world. Instead of defending their use, the administration should be disavowing them and rededicating itself to international law.

[Khazadman Risen]

Why should we follow the GC when our enemy doesn't?

[pritchke]

The thing about the Geneva Convention is that it is a set of guidelines that don't say don't do this or that. So you have to use common sense. I believe torture is defined in it however as harm either mentally or physically. The problem comes in when is something going to far. Having a man go without sleep for days and days is obviously a violation but what if he is only allowed four or 5 hours sleep per day would that be harmful to him or not. The Geneva Convention does not give that detail. Has for squatting with a bag I would say fine but at least leave the man his shorts to keep his dignity thus violating the Geneva Convention in my opinion. A Nudist on the other hand might feel that him being butt naked is no big deal. Many of the pictures of piling naked bodies and forced sex acts were obviously in violation and every one agrees with those. There are other that thread a very thin line however.

[ 05-14-2004, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Timber Loftis]

Because we signed a piece of paper saying we would.

[pritchke]

Originally posted by Khazadman Risen: Why should we follow the GC when our enemy doesn't?

This question is one of a child who does not have good parents for a role model. Maybe that answers your question. If not than the answer is you should be setting the standard of what others should follow.

[ 05-14-2004, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Because we signed a piece of paper saying we would.

There is one good reason- another is that torture and 'torture-like' methods are reportedly as unreliable as any other interrogation method. Let's also not forget we are supposed to have scruples- that is a sense of morality and a respect for human decency and innocent life. The kind of scruples some of our enemies lack.

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

Originally posted by Khazadman Risen: Why should we follow the GC when our enemy doesn't?

You're absolutely right. We should kill them all and let the gods sort it out.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Because we signed a piece of paper saying we would.

There is one good reason- another is that torture and 'torture-like' methods are reportedly as unreliable as any other interrogation method. Let's also not forget we are supposed to have scruples- that is a sense of morality and a respect for human decency and innocent life. The kind of scruples some of our enemies lack. [/QUOTE]Not my view. In my view, scruples go out the window when security/safety is on the line or when you are fighting a tough fight against an unscrupulous enemy. But, because we signed those conventions, exercising a different view has been preempted. So, to me, it's the most important reason. "It's morally wrong" doesn't get one very far in court, and I guess that limits my view of it -- call it professional tunnel-vision.

[promethius9594]

heh, im not disagreeing with following the GC, but, as has been stated, some of the pictures simply do not make a clear cut determination of torture. I would say that given the customs of the country the forced photographic degradations of the people specifically by placing them in sexual positions of like sexes makes some of the pictures CERTAINLY questionable, but others are techniques which are employed by the interogation agencies of every nation in the world.

techniques which will generally not be considered violations of the GC include such things as meager rations of crappy food, deprevation of sleep for non lethal periods (yes, sleep deprevation can eventually kill), forced standing, stripping of clothing, threats, incentives, and more.

non approved events include physical beating, any activity which causes physical damage or mental stress (with exception to minor things which will recover, such as sleep deprevation, lack of good food).

as such, if we only fed them food which is expressly forbidden by their religion, it wouldnt be torture, because we arent required to tailor diets, but we couldnt deny them food for more than a couple days at most, and only then at good reason.

next point-- interogation through threat, embarrassment, or discomfort/incentive is an INCREDIBLY effective method of gathering information. asking nicely with a pretty please and a cherry on top comes in close second, im sure...

third, hypocracy, there is no country in this world which has ANY room whatsover to discuss the issue of maltreatment of prisoners. every country (erm, world power and country america has been involved in war with) in this world has done one hundred times worse to its prisoners... ask an iraqi if theyd rather have a dance naked american "torture" or a good ole english thumb screw and we'll see who the hypocrits are when it comes to criticism.

[promethius9594]

okay notes here:

dog piling on prisoners: illegal
stripping prisoners, even in proximity: not illegal
requiring prisoners to stand for extended periods of time: not illegal
forcing prisoners to assume sexual positions which are expressly against their religion and/or culture: illegal
stomping on fingers: illegal
forcing prisoners to masturbate: illegal
using threats to get information, such as faking the use of shock prods to scare prisoners: not illegal

yes, some illegal items ocurred. the photos which are widespread right now do not contain much in the way of abuses though