Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Scratch Torture From US Rule Book
Congress Should Take a Stand: No Abuse Allowed
When it comes to torture, the Bush administration wants the United States to have it both ways. President Bush believes America can be a country governed by laws, even though it may break the law under special circumstances. This is a morally bankrupt position that diminishes America's stature in the world, and puts U.S. citizens and soldiers at risk. Moreover, it is not necessary. The United States can protect itself without breaking U.S. or international law.
Executive Order
The Justice Department tried to clarify the administration's position on CIA interrogations in letters sent to Congress last month. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian Benczkowski said the United States follows the Geneva Conventions' guidance on interrogations, but that it could deviate if circumstances -- such as an imminent attack, for example -- justified it. This explanation reflects the administration's long-held belief that the 9/11 attacks justify taking extraordinary actions against terrorism suspects.
Mr. Bush outlined the administration's rules for interrogations in an executive order last year that sought to comply with limits imposed by Congress and the Supreme Court. While the new rules would put the United States in closer compliance with the Conventions, the Justice letter makes clear that there is wiggle room for harsher methods. President Bush says that the techniques have prevented more terror attacks.
FBI Director Robert Mueller, however, has said in testimony to Congress that it is possible to use noncoercive methods to get information from terror suspects that protect the country from attack. More important, the U.S. Army Field Manual does not sanction torture and spells out precisely what techniques are permissible.
The administration's redefined rules are fuzzy about following the Geneva Conventions prohibition against ''outrages upon personal dignity'' of prisoners. For example, Mr. Benczkowski said in his letter: ``The fact that an act is undertaken to prevent a threatened terrorist attack, rather than for the purpose of humiliation or abuse, would be relevant to a reasonable observer in measuring the outrageousness of the act.''
No Hard-and-Fast Rules
In other words, the U.S. wants discretion to torture. It wants no hard-and-fast rules. This is a dangerous position. It puts U.S. citizens and soldiers at risk in other countries. If the U.S. commander in chief doesn't stand firmly against torture, how can CIA agents and soldiers decipher the rules? Congress should adapt rules that make it clear to agents, soldiers and the president: The United States can protect itself without torturing people. We don't torture. Period.
Copyright 2008 Miami Herald Media Co.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
9 Comments so far
Show AllThere's no point to having rules if you don't enforce them, with criminal prosecution. On January 20, 2009, it's time to get out the handcuffs.
Torture is just one example of the Bush Regime's practice of making laws, treaties, policies and regulations that they are exempt from but everybody else is required to follow.
Wow, i thought this article would be about a new form of torture consisting of "scratching".
Wouldn't put it past our non-elected representatives to torture someone with thousands of tiny little scratches. It's kinda what they do to the pupulace with their tax cuts for the wealthy and the lowering of interest rates. Just a million tiny scratches here and there.
The US gov't commits crimes, including mass murder, against the US People, and People of the World.
The US gov't blames vague and distinct targets as perpetrators.
The US gov't gathers up citizens of the world, tortures these people, and gains "confessions" from these people for what the Pentagon and Mike McConnell have actually masterminded.
The US gov't holds military tribunals, using these "confessions" and other falsified evidence, and acquires guilty verdicts that they then try to use to prove the system of protection and "law" works.
The US gov't then parades this all as proof that the Constitution is, "just a goddamn peice of paper," and that the Geneva Convention is, "quaint", and that the citizens of the US should buy their protection from the gov't. The price is only truth and freedom.
So, yes the US "needs" to torture. The only other option is to have 2/3's of this institution tried for treason.
Torture has always been used by the US Empire. Petras's article Military or Market-Driven Empire Building: 1950-2008 is a must be read.
The English language can be very precise, but only if that is the speaker's wish. Unfortunately, the Bush administration habitually choose imprecision. In this example, Bush says that 'to prevent a threatened terrorist attack' U.S. personnel is authorized to sidestep the Geneva Conventions. On the face of it, this policy can hardly be argued against, which is what most Americans will conclude, and Bush knows it. Yet, if the attack is not imminent, threatens no lives or property, and its existence is highly speculative, we are still asked to trust Bush (or the 'Obliterator') to define 'prevent', 'threatened', 'terrorist' and 'attack' for us.
No thanks. It is safer for us to precisely, and legally, define those words for would be tyrants.
The English language can be very precise, but only if that is the speaker's wish. Unfortunately, the Bush administration habitually choose imprecision. In this example, Bush says that 'to prevent a threatened terrorist attack' U.S. personnel is authorized to sidestep the Geneva Conventions. On the face of it, this policy can hardly be argued against, which is what most Americans will conclude, and Bush knows it. Yet, if the attack is not imminent, threatens no lives or property, and its existence is highly speculative, we are still asked to trust Bush (or the 'Obliterator') to define 'prevent', 'threatened', 'terrorist' and 'attack' for us.
No thanks. It is safer for us to precisely, and legally, define those words for would be tyrants.
There are no statesmen to stand up and rectify the situation as regard to torture and many other problems facing our country. There is no one to voice the concerns of the many; not in the media and not in the political realm. There are no Walter Cronkite's; there are no FDR's. There is no voice of sanity being heard in this sad state of affairs known as the United States of America. Instead we have the virulent Right and shallow figures such as Pelosi and Reid coupled with a half assed John Wayne as fearless leader. A cowboy type leader who is nothing more than a recovering alcoholic that went AWOL when it was his time to step up. America's frigging doomed without some adult leadership soon and all of the blood we've ever shed will have been for naught.
News flash to the Miami Herald: a)you can't reason with people who are fundamentally unreasonable. b) You can't appeal to the conscience of a sociopath because he has none. c)You can't talk about constitutional protections with someone who considers the constitution "just a goddam piece of paper."