"Making Torture Legal"

[PeachMonkey]

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17230

Fascinating article about the process by which the Bush Administration developed the rationales to override international treaties, US laws, and the opinions of members of its own Cabinet via executive order.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Even worse to my mind was the way their tame intellectuals started floating justifications for torture in the civilian press and TV well before we got into Iraq. There's a disturbing article about this issue on "Slate," right now.

Sometimes I wish there were a Hell, with a particularly hot corner in the coals available for people who come up with these cute little notions, and then send out soldiers to execute the sorts of horrors that they themselves carefully avoided...and yes, I mean Bush's "service," as well as Cheney and Rumsfeld's draft-dodging.

Funny how these armchair warrior theories never seem to come from the military itself; in the article cited above, the Army's JAG office basically said, "Oh, hell no!"

I can understand and sympathize with stressed-out soldiers who are in the field and do what they think they have to do, though I think it's wrong. I have no sympathy whatsoever for the clowns who sit safe at home and come up with this crap. Which, just incidentally, happens to be illegal, immoral, and against the Constitution.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

This is nothing new.

Lincoln did it during the US Civil war, even sitting and laughing as Sherman told stories of the pilaging and raping his troops did. If the South had won, he and his commanders would have been in front of war crime tribunerals for their actions.

The Allies during WW2 regularly mistreated POWs, in both theaters.
The Japanese were not bound by international convention, but the US, Brits, etc were.

War is hell, governments full of cads and worse. We can only hope that as time goes on, that those cads will be ever more shouted down by those with morals, ethics and a respect for the legal.

 

[PeachMonkey]

This is nothing new.

...making it all the more disgusting.

Lincoln did it during the US Civil war, even sitting and laughing as Sherman told stories of the pilaging and raping his troops did.

Do you have a reference for this? I've not heard this story before.

If the South had won, he and his commanders would have been in front of war crime tribunerals for their actions.

And if the Axis had won, US leaders would have been in front of war crime tribunals for, among other things, firebombings of civilians, blockades of civilian foodstuffs, and POW mistreatment.

War is hell, governments full of cads and worse. We can only hope that as time goes on, that those cads will be ever more shouted down by those with morals, ethics and a respect for the legal.

This, I think, is the key -- regardless of how things happened in the past, we must rise above these crimes. And when we don't, those responsible must be made to pay.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Originally Posted by Kaith Rustaz
Lincoln did it during the US Civil war, even sitting and laughing as Sherman told stories of the pilaging and raping his troops did.

Do you have a reference for this? I've not heard this story before.

Charles Royster ed., Memoirs of General William T. Sherman (New York: Macmillan, 1990) p.810, cited in Marszalek, p.336

Thomas J. DiLorenzo, The Real Lincoln (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2002) p.194

"On March 27, 1865, after his March to (and from) the Sea was completed, Sherman met with Grant and Lincoln at City Point, on the James River, where he regaled them with his exploits. Sherman wrote in his personal memoirs that Lincoln wanted to know all about his marches, particularly enjoying stories about the bummers (as the looters were called) and their foragin activities."

Targeting Civilians: Lincoln as War Criminal
​

Lincoln’s Culture of Death

GENERAL SHERMAN'S ATROCITIES AND WAR CRIMES

MEMOIRS OF GENERAL W. T. SHERMAN CHAPTER XXIV.
http://civilwartalk.com/cwt_alt/resources/e-texts/mem_sherman/24.htm
http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics and History/Lincoln/targeting_civilians.htm

 

[DeLamar.J]

I was in the army, I know how they operate. But the most scary thing of all, are the things that they get away with that you will never know about. The army does alot worse things than just what is known about. They have just been sloppy lately. You would **** yourself if you knew all the war crimes that the USA has got away with that will never be known about.

 

[Flatlander]

James, thank you for contributing. I just want to mention that in the Study, its a good idea if we only make claims that we are prepared to substantiate somehow. I infer from your post that you have no intention of doing that, and that's ok, but its just kind of like teasing us a bit, you know? "I know something, but I'm not telling..."

 

[Bob Hubbard]

There is a difference between 'colateral damage' (ie civilian deaths due to bombings, incidental fire, etc) and the taking of hostages, execution of civilians, torture of POWs, etc. There is also a difference between 'heat of the moment' stuff, and 'unofficial official policy'.

Alot of the stuff thats going on now, is still vague, and possibly classified.
It's also too easy to miss the context due to insuficient data.

Thats why I look at previous, completed conflicts with lots of documentation in my examples.

 

[GAB]

Flatlander,

Thank you for the information, I will go read the forum rules, regarding the study post procedures.

Not knowing the rules or laws can be self incriminating.

You know like, I know because I was there, witnessed that and that is why I am telling you this.

Is that the case DJ?

Regards, Gary

 

[Bob Hubbard]

It's less 'official policy' and more 'tradition'.

The studys for the serious, professional discussion/debate of things, which would indicate an expectation of data, fact, figures and statistics, as well as verifiable references in those discussions.

But we never said it had to meet collegiate standards.
(But good grammar, paragraph breaks and spell checking always help make your points clearer.)

 

[DeLamar.J]

James, thank you for contributing. I just want to mention that in the Study, its a good idea if we only make claims that we are prepared to substantiate somehow. I infer from your post that you have no intention of doing that, and that's ok, but its just kind of like teasing us a bit, you know? "I know something, but I'm not telling..."

compfused.com/downloads/16dnhkfdklnxm/lootingisbad.wmv

copy and paste

I dont know who and the hell those tankers think they are, but I wouldnt blame those guys for blowing them away, they deserve it. Who the hell do they think they are doing **** like that. We are supposed to be the good guys, not bullys.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

I've seen that one before... Frontline is such a good example of investigative reporting, but usually I become kind of despondent afterwards....

And yes, we should be the "good guys". I have no idea why soldiers would do that - why piss off the people who might otherwise not want to attack you?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

ok, devils advocate here....

How is the US Armys shooting or otherwise punishing looters any better or worse than say, the Jamaican police who were under orders to shoot looters in the latest hurricane situation?

 

[DeLamar.J]

And they wonder why this happens


compfused.com/downloads/16kffhrwsk/iraqambush.wmv

 

[Feisty Mouse]

ok, devils advocate here....

How is the US Armys shooting or otherwise punishing looters any better or worse than say, the Jamaican police who were under orders to shoot looters in the latest hurricane situation?

Well - in that case, I'm assuming it's Jamaicans deciding to shoot other Jamaicans. In our case, Americans are perceived as shooting at (or harassing, or destroying cars of) Iraqis.

Although shooting looters? Sheesh.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The order to shoot looters (and rioters) is common. I believe it was in effect during the LA race riots a few years back.

That particular clip of the tank crushing the car was made in the early days of the war.

One thing we don't know is what the current 'rules of engagement' are.
(old article: http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=13834&archive=true)

Now, back to the main topic here, yes, the law does very specifically state what is and is not allowed. Lincoln had an 'escape clause' worked in to things in his day. Bush and his 'boys' are only following a long, familiar and shameful path, where they look for every legal loophole.

Remember, the taking of hostages is against all of the laws we are operating under, yet US troops have done just that, in attempts to force those on the 'most wanted' list to turn up. This has worked, yet it is illegal. By doing so, they may have saved thousands of lives...but they broke the law. So, who is right?

Keep in mind, the Bush administration is guilty of war crimes, yet it will never be tried..that whole, we won part. The winner defines history, and writes the rule books.

 

[GAB]

Hi,
War is hell, don't go there. But if you do and you are forced to defend and there is no other solution...

Kill them all and let God sort it out. War crimes are all relative on who's rules you want to play by.

War is a horrible thing and there should be some way to stop it, but until that time comes there should be no rules. Last man standing comes to mind.

No trade with the enemy for at least one Hundred years. No prisoners.

We will set the rules, because we are the rule maker, now that we have entered an all time new low, we have crossed the line and have set a precedent, just like we did in WWll. The big bomb.

That is one of the reasons the Japanese were treated with gentler rules, after the war, we then became their protectors.

The Japanese won the war we won the battle. They were looking ahead 50 years as they always do. They read us like a book and were right on.

Torture is a way of war, if you don't want torture then don't go to war.
It is not hard to put the war, into the man, but it is very hard to remove it.

The Marine Corps is very good at what they do. They treat the Marines worse then they treat the enemy, at least they did when I was in. Torture is the middle name of Marine Corps boot camp...

Regards, Gary

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Kill them all and let God sort it out.

No offense, GAB, but I absolutely hate this saying that has been used so much. Sure, let's abdicate all personal responsibility - and any international agreements constructed so hopefully *our* troops will not be tortured if and when captured - and just wade in indiscriminately.

/end mini-rant

 

[RandomPhantom700]

I doubt the same "let God sort 'em out" philosophy would hold once it was our guys who are being captured and/or defeated.

 

[Flatlander]

With respect to the article that Peachmonkey linked on the lead post, I find an interesting problem. Though the President has essentially paved the road toward allowing his authorization to be a legal order in the context of US law, it still does not release him from international legal prosecution. What is the value of this? It means that he cannot be held accountable on hid own soil, but can still be legally tried internationally. Does this demonstrate that he (POS) has no fear of international law? Does it show his confidence that the United States is able to act in any way she sees fit, without fear of consequence? Is this a good thing?

Under what circumstances can the percieved benefit of torturing your prisoners outweigh the possibility of international ramifications? Has the art of interrogation proven to be that ineffective?

And finally, what does this tell us about the morality of the one(s) behind this legal arranging? What a sad state of affairs, and unfortunate demonstration of the decivilization of executive agendizing.