Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Sat 05/15/2004 View Fri 05/14/2004 View Thu 05/13/2004 View Wed 05/12/2004 View Tue 05/11/2004 View Mon 05/10/2004 View Sun 05/09/2004
1
2004-05-15 Iraq-Jordan
U.S. Military Bars Some Iraq Interrogation Methods
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by rex 2004-05-15 12:00:00 AM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 
Rex, your link to The Dark Art of Interrogation doesn't work.

Rex: So what is "allowed" when interrogating POW’s? What bunk. Expect more body bags as a result of this PC posturing.

Rough interrogations don't reduce the number of US body bags. Rough methods might work on a few POWs but backfire with a much larger number of POWs. When all considerations are weighed, the use of rough methods is not the most effective interrogation policy.

Conservatives ought to respect the experience of civilization, which long ago and very widely banned the torture of POWs. It has been embarrassing to watch the Bush administration resort to primitive, discredited methods and now belatedly rediscover the wheel. On this issue it is the liberals who have based their position on well-established, civilized experience instead of experimenting with goofy tricks and gambits.
.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-05-15 8:59:06 AM||   2004-05-15 8:59:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Mark Bowden's article is here.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2004-05-15 9:56:18 AM||   2004-05-15 9:56:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Conservatives ought to respect the experience of civilization, which long ago and very widely banned the torture of POWs. It has been embarrassing to watch the Bush administration resort to primitive, discredited methods and now belatedly rediscover the wheel. On this issue it is the liberals who have based their position on well-established, civilized experience instead of experimenting with goofy tricks and gambits

I guess it escaped your attention those who did resort to 'primitive methods' were relieved and/or court martialed.

It seems it has not been necessary for the press or their leftist allies to point out that for all the 'horror' of the methods, they were getting results: information.

After all, us lowly conservative type might not consider this Abu Ghraib hysteria overblown, otherwise.
Posted by Anonymous4859 2004-05-15 9:58:43 AM||   2004-05-15 9:58:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Mike Sylwester: On this issue it is the liberals who have based their position on well-established, civilized experience instead of experimenting with goofy tricks and gambits.

As usual, Mike Sylwester is mobying around, pretending to be a conservative while peddling his radical left horse manure. I alway thought his postings of goofy Jihad Unspun and anti-semitic articles were kind of strange. Now he comes out as a creature out of the Democratic Underground.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2004-05-15 9:59:46 AM||   2004-05-15 9:59:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 As usual, Mike Sylwester is mobying around, pretending to be a conservative while peddling his radical left horse manure. I alway thought his postings of goofy Jihad Unspun and anti-semitic articles were kind of strange. Now he comes out as a creature out of the Democratic Underground.

Alrighty then!

Howdy Mikey!

Coming out of the closet, as your DU friends might say?
Posted by badanov  2004-05-15 10:06:23 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org]  2004-05-15 10:06:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Mike S., personally I don't care what your political affiliation is. Professionally though, a few stupid pictures taken by some derelict guards who overstepped their bounds is much different then precision psychological pressure. Don't confuse the mallet swung recklessly by a drunk w/the scalpel being used by the surgeon. As someone else said - this is PC bullshit.
Posted by Jarhead 2004-05-15 10:58:45 AM||   2004-05-15 10:58:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 "Conservatives ought to respect the experience of civilization, which long ago and very widely banned the torture of POWs."

No, "civilization" did not "ban" the torturing of POWS: the signatories of the Geneva accords agreed not to use torture on prisoners from other signatory nations. It is a matter of agreement, resting entirely on the assumption that the other side will reciprocate with like restraint.

The enemy we face cannot even grasp the basic notion of "morality", much less does it give a fat rat's ass about anything we could possibly call "civilization." They are brute savages, and nothing more, and constraining our own treatment of their prisoners will have absolutely NO moderating effect on their behavior toward us in the slightest.

"On this issue it is the liberals who have based their position on well-established, civilized experience instead of experimenting with goofy tricks and gambits."

Bullshit. Liberals are basing their position on the only thing they ever give a damn about, and that's winning the next election-- and that means undermining the war effort by any available means.
Posted by Dave D.  2004-05-15 10:59:27 AM||   2004-05-15 10:59:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 
#7: the signatories of the Geneva accords agreed not to use torture on prisoners from other signatory nations

The problem with this line of argument, Dave, is that President Bush declared that the Geneva Accords would be applied to all captives in Iraq. That means these methods were illegal there in these circumstances.

On the other hand, President Bush declared that the Geneva Accords would not be applied to members of Al Qaeda. I think that's a valid distinction that I agree with.
.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-05-15 12:19:04 PM||   2004-05-15 12:19:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Only problem Mike how do we know that some of th iraqi's arn't Al-Q.
Posted by djohn66 2004-05-15 1:48:09 PM||   2004-05-15 1:48:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Alright, let's get a few things straight. They weren't POW's. The people in the two cell blocks in question were accused of involvement in acts of terrorism against Coalition troops. These were the badest of the bad, the guys with the explosive residue on their hands or the det wires in their hands when caught. We had every right to shoot them on the spot.

In addition, most of what could be termed violations are a matter of interpretation. The conventions don't contain a list of disapproved items. I, for one, don't feel that hoods, stress positions without restraints, or the wearing of women's underwear constitute violations. Nor is the use of force to restrain a prisoner or move an unwilling prisoner necessarily a violation. Much of the IRC beefing, for example, is just that. We weren't nice to the prisoners. Boo freakin' hoo.
Posted by Chuck Simmins  2004-05-15 3:34:43 PM|| [http://blog.simmins.org]  2004-05-15 3:34:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 President Bush declared that the Geneva Accords would be applied to all captives in Iraq."
Actually, he didn't, Mike.
For a complete explanation of the legal status of the WOT's prisoner status, check out our official policy as outlined by Albert Gonzalez in yesterday's NYSlimes:The Rule of Law and the Rules of War.
Bacisally, Iraqi captives don't rate the Geneva Convention because they don't fight in a nation's uniform for a country that's waging war according to the rules of war.
Posted by Jen  2004-05-15 3:35:42 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-05-15 3:35:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 
Re #11: Jen, here's the relevant part of the article you linked:
Despite being a crucial front in the war on terrorism, Iraq presents a very different situation. Both the United States and Iraq are parties to the Geneva Conventions. The United States recognizes that these treaties are binding in the war for the liberation of Iraq. There has never been any suggestion by our government that the conventions do not apply in that conflict. Although recent news reports from Iraq have caused some to question our commitment to the treaties, make no mistake that the United States is bound to observe the rules of war in the Geneva Conventions.

Please explain your point to me so I can understand it.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-05-15 5:37:50 PM||   2004-05-15 5:37:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 I'll add that I saw and heard during the current Congressional hearings that an Administrative spokesman said explicitly that the Administration declares that it applies the Geneva Convention to all captives in Iraq, just like I said.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-05-15 5:39:47 PM||   2004-05-15 5:39:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Let me add also that the article The Dark of Interrogation is superb (good link at #2). Thanks for the recommendation, Rex.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-05-15 6:07:33 PM||   2004-05-15 6:07:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 For your further education in our policy of treating Iraqi prisoners, read Jed Babbin's piece at NRO.
Some of the Iraqis were treated as POWs under the Geneva Convention as Gonzalez stated-these would be Saddam's Army and National Guard that we first encountered last year.
The prisoners under consideration at Abu Ghraib are rather different--Again, per my remarks about "official" soldiers fighting in uniform for a declared enemy power.
Posted by Jen  2004-05-15 6:14:48 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-05-15 6:14:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 From Babbin's article and to address your specific complaints, MS:

The decision correctly reads terrorists out of the third Geneva Convention, whose definitions of prisoners of war are broad, but clearly don't include terrorists. By deciding that some of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib aren't POWs is simply to state the obvious. Some are held as mere criminals for "Iraqi on Iraqi" street crimes. Some are held as POWs, former members of the Saddam forces who wore uniforms and were under command of the regime (only two of the Geneva criteria). And some, like the so-called "foreign fighters" — terrorists from Iran, Syria, and their ilk — are held as non-POWs, outside the Geneva conditions. According to Rumsfeld's testimony, at least 3,800 of them are members of the Iranian-backed terrorist Mujahedin-e Khalk organization.

That should clear up those problems you have with the GC and who does and doesn't qualify.
Posted by Jen  2004-05-15 6:19:26 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-05-15 6:19:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Thank you, #2, for providing a link that works to Mark Bowden's article. It's a long article but worth the read.

Basically, Bowden shows that "torture lite" has been used effectively for years and years[not for the sake of cruelty, as bleeding hearts may suggest]but for the sake of extracting valuable information that could save lives. To ban torture lite is to bloc valuable information being extracted. Ergo, more body bags coming home, while armchair jurists force our military and intelligence officers to "take the higher road" while prosecuting a war.

It is unfortunate that Bush caved so visibly in regards to the Abu "humiliation" scandal. As #9 points out, how do we know the good guys from the bad guys, and certainly Al Queda is not the only terrorist groups operating in Iraq. As well, any unlawful combatant, not in uniform putting bearing arms or using boms to try to kill civilians or uniformed coalition troops, should not be afforded Geneva Convention protections by letter of int'l law.

It was unfortunate that Bush made the concessions he did. It was uncalled for. He could have merely said that the offending military police would be investigated and punished due to the fact that they transgressed US military codes of appropriate behavior. Now his aquiescence about Geneva Convention covering un-uniformed Iraqi POW's may have even compromised the Gitmo cases before the Supreme Court.

But what do I know? I'm not trying to get re-elected as President nor am I trying to maintain the good will of coalition forces serving with us in Iraq, who may not want to be associated with what the media has described as an "atrocity."

Here's why I think legally, at least, Bush could have stood his ground that like Gitmo un-uniformed insurgents were not POW's covered by the the Geneva Convention or its Protocols. The Iraq captives are in the same situation as the Gitmo crew, except now, because of the naked pee-pee/gog leash photos, the WH has been brow beaten into pretending Iraqi POW's are part of a state's armed forces. They are not, nor are they protected by Protocol I of the Geneva Convention.

Geneva Convention III addressed treatment of POW's in traditional wars. Both Iraq and the USA ratified Geneva Convention III. Then in 1977, Jimmy Carter, Yasser Arafat, and the Red Cross [what an unholy threesome!] tried to push through ratification of Protocols I and II which would extend POW status to un-uniformed combatants,etc. Protocol I was especially worrisome. Good for us, Jimmy got the boot before he could get the Senate to ratify Protocol I. Ronald Reagan deep sixed Protocol I and most of Protocol II. Bottom line: the USA was one of 2 nations I know of that did not ratify Protocols I and II. The other nation that did not ratify Protocols I and III was Iraq. Interesting, yes?

Now internationalists [and unfortunately Bush] are stretching Geneva Convention IV by saying insurgents are covered as "civilians"-say what?? There's the 1987 Convention against Torture which the US ratified, which addresses "severe" torture, but are Abu "humiliation" techniques considered "severe torture?" Doubt it.

I heard Michael Savage interview a Senator last week,[I don't recall his name], who confirmed that what the media and Democrat Party grand standers refuse to acknowledge is that life saving information was extracted from high value POW's in Abu as a result of the softening measures used by the military police.

Fyi, I'll cut and post some passages from Bowden's article that show a difference between the purposes of torture and torture lite, as well as distinctions between civilan rules and warrior necessities. It's clear to me that if we expect our warriors to follow the rules of war to the letter, we should only use them as peacekeeping forces. Prosecuting a war according to the Geneva Convention is very selfish to our troops. Our state side generated high brow demands of having soldiers behave like gentlemen on the battlefield will end up victimizing them as surely as the enemy's bullets will.

From Bowden's 10/03 article:
"...Torture is repulsive. It is deliberate cruelty, a crude and ancient tool of political oppression...But professional terrorists pose a harder question. They are lockboxes containing potentially life-saving information...Then there are methods that, some people argue, fall short of torture. Called "torture lite," these include sleep deprivation, exposure to heat or cold, the use of drugs to cause confusion, rough treatment (slapping, shoving, or shaking), forcing a prisoner to stand for days at a time or to sit in uncomfortable positions, and playing on his fears for himself and his family. Although excruciating for the victim, these tactics generally leave no permanent marks and do no lasting physical harm.
The Geneva Convention makes no distinction: it bans any mistreatment of prisoners...But some nations that are otherwise committed to ending brutality have employed torture lite under what they feel are justifiable circumstances...Indeed, some police officers, soldiers, and intelligence agents who abhor "severe" methods believe that banning all forms of physical pressure would be dangerously naive. Few support the use of physical pressure to extract confessions, especially because victims will often say anything (to the point of falsely incriminating themselves) to put an end to pain. But many veteran interrogators believe that the use of such methods to extract information is justified if it could save lives—whether by forcing an enemy soldier to reveal his army's battlefield positions or forcing terrorists to betray the details of ongoing plots. As these interrogators see it, the well-being of the captive must be weighed against the lives that might be saved by forcing him to talk. A method that produces life-saving information without doing lasting harm to anyone is not just preferable; it appears to be morally sound...A way of sorting this one out is to consider two clashing sensibilities: the warrior and the civilian...The warrior sensibility requires doing what must be done to complete a mission. By definition, war exists because civil means have failed. What counts is winning, and preserving one's own troops. To a field commander in a combat zone, the life of an uncooperative enemy captive weighs very lightly against the lives of his own men. There are very few who, faced with a reluctant captive, would not in certain circumstances reach for the alligator clips, or something else...Calling detainees "prisoners of war" would entitle them to the protections of the Geneva Convention, which prohibits the "physical or mental torture" of POWs, and "any other form of coercion," even to the extent of "unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind." (In the contemptuous words of one military man, they "prohibit everything except three square meals, a warm bed, and access to a Harvard education.")...The history of interrogation by U.S. armed forces and spy agencies is one of giving lip service to international agreements while vigorously using coercion whenever circumstances seem to warrant it...Torture is a crime against humanity, but coercion is an issue that is rightly handled with a wink, or even a touch of hypocrisy; it should be banned but also quietly practiced. Those who protest coercive methods will exaggerate their horrors, which is good: it generates a useful climate of fear. It is wise of the President to reiterate U.S. support for international agreements banning torture, and it is wise for American interrogators to employ whatever coercive methods work. It is also smart not to discuss the matter with anyone..."

Postscript: Another good article which I will post in its entirety for others to read outside this particular thread is from Frontpage and it reveals the nature of the enemy. Who's going to protect us against them...the Geneva Convention? JAG lawyers?
http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13372

"Dismemberment:the new terror campaign" May 13/04
Posted by rex 2004-05-15 6:37:26 PM||   2004-05-15 6:37:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Note the way the Left is progressively replacing the term 'abuse' by 'torture'. I have seen no evidence that torture has been used, even by those (few) who were clearly abusing prisoners.
Posted by Phil B  2004-05-15 6:42:19 PM||   2004-05-15 6:42:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 rex, you're kind of new here, so I'll let you in on one of our RB bits of knowledge--Reuters, from whence this story came, is very Left and very pro-Islamist/pro-terrorist and quite anti-Bush and anti-America.
We often call it al-Reuters.
So, keep that in mind when you read anything of theirs!
Posted by Jen  2004-05-15 6:45:48 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-05-15 6:45:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Jen - you forgot to mention the "sneer quotes" Al-Rooters is infamous for
Posted by Frank G  2004-05-15 7:04:05 PM||   2004-05-15 7:04:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Rex is new here, but he's already offered up two links with great stuff in them. Thanks, Rex.
Posted by Steve White  2004-05-15 7:05:06 PM||   2004-05-15 7:05:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 True, Steve...I just wanted him to know not to let al-Rooters upset him too much if it had.
And Frank, yep-the sneer quotes around words like "terrorists" are indispensable!
Posted by Jen  2004-05-15 7:22:48 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-05-15 7:22:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Bowden: Torture is a crime against humanity.

Bowden's delicate lefty sensibilities at work. I really don't see it. If torture is a crime against humanity, what would he call the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo?

Here's an interesting passage from the Atlantic article:

She knows that the use of coercion in interrogation did not end completely when the Israeli Supreme Court banned it in 1999. The difference is that when interrogators use "aggressive methods" now, they know they are breaking the law and could potentially be held responsible for doing so. This acts as a deterrent, and tends to limit the use of coercion to only the most defensible situations.

Has anything noticed that the Second Intifada, which has killed over 1000 Israelis, began after the routine use of torture against terrorists was banned in 1999? Could it be that Israeli security men were not willing to put their reputations and livelihoods on the line every time the use of torture was called for, and decided against torturing a terrorist for information? The Israeli judiciary may be salving their collective consciences by disallowing torture, but ordinary Israelis, both civilians and military draftees, are paying a high price for their pangs of conscience.

Here's another passage from the Atlantic article:

In other words, when the ban is lifted, there is no restraining lazy, incompetent, or sadistic interrogators. As long as it remains illegal to torture, the interrogator who employs coercion must accept the risk. He must be prepared to stand up in court, if necessary, and defend his actions. Interrogators will still use coercion because in some cases they will deem it worth the consequences. This does not mean they will necessarily be punished. In any nation the decision to prosecute a crime is an executive one. A prosecutor, a grand jury, or a judge must decide to press charges, and the chances that an interrogator in a genuine ticking-bomb case would be prosecuted, much less convicted, is very small.

This is such horse manure. In Bowden's moronic scenario, the lazy interrogator is supposedly going to become more hardworking if he's not allowed to torture terror suspects. The reality is that he's going to become less effective, together with the rest of his cohorts. If torture of terrorist suspects is banned, why would a lazy interrogator bother to torture the prisoner? If he can't get the information from the terror suspect without torturing the prisoner, no one's going to blame him - I've never heard of anyone getting demoted for *not* getting information that, in any event, no one is *sure* that the suspect possesses. When torture is banned, if the interrogator does get the information by torturing the prisoner, he finds himself suspended, his reputation in tatters and his pension at risk.

Why would any rational interrogator put his whole future at risk? Did FBI investigators put themselves at risk by cutting Moussaoui to ribbons in order to find out what he knew about any terror plots? No. Those 3000 lives and billions of dollars of infrastructure could have been saved by torturing Moussaoui, but no FBI investigator put his career on the line to save those lives. And no FBI investigator is going to. That is the result of banning the torture of terror suspects.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2004-05-15 7:25:37 PM||   2004-05-15 7:25:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Mike, and another thing. About this little paragraph:
"Rough interrogations don't reduce the number of US body bags. Rough methods might work on a few POWs but backfire with a much larger number of POWs. When all considerations are weighed, the use of rough methods is not the most effective interrogation policy."

You have no way of knowing if this is true or not. But I'll betcha a dinner at Ruth Chris that it's not.
Zhang Fei is right-
Those 3000 lives and billions of dollars of infrastructure could have been saved by torturing Moussaoui, but no FBI investigator put his career on the line to save those lives. And no FBI investigator is going to. That is the result of banning the torture of terror suspects.

National security forbids us being told right now, but we'll never know how many attacks on either our soldiers or on us here at home have already been foiled by what enemy detainees at Gitmo and in Iraq have told us!
I trust my fellow Americans (and by this I mean our soldiers and intell agents) enough to rely on their sense of fairness and humanity in wartime to treat prisoners properly to extract information without the hysterical sturm und drung we've just been drug through here.
This media mess is what I call torture!
Posted by Jen  2004-05-15 8:07:57 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-05-15 8:07:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Jen and all others, I'll say it again. The Bush Administration has declared that the Geneval Convention is to be applied to all captives -- not just to all POWs -- in Iraq.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-05-15 8:12:36 PM||   2004-05-15 8:12:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 I don't think so, Mike.
President Bush and his team want the humane spirit of the GC applied but I can't believe Islamist terrorists will get so many protections, especially after that Berg beheading they did the other day to remind us of how they don't play by the rules.
Posted by Jen  2004-05-15 8:16:25 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-05-15 8:16:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 The Bush Administration has declared that the Geneval Convention is to be applied to all captives

I seriously doubt this is true as it would in itself be a violation of said convention. Probably what they said was that the standards in the Geneva convention would applied to all (combatant) prisoners, as others have pointed out this allows summary execution amoungst other things.
Posted by Phil B  2004-05-15 8:23:01 PM||   2004-05-15 8:23:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 a. Thanks #19 for the tip about Reuters, but I am well aware that mainstream press like "al reuters and al-aAp" is left wing biased. You misunderstood my point for posting the article.

I quoted this particular article because it reported a new POW policy at Abu that is likely true and with which I vehemently disagree. Also, this new POW policy of "limited interrogation tools" makes for good discussion points. Look, we are up to #28 now.

Sometimes quoting articles from the Fifth Column lets us know about new difficulties we're up against in the war on terrorism. Quoting such articles should not automatically imply that the poster agrees with the contents of the article.

b. I'm sorry I'm screwing up with my article links. In #17, the article entitled "Dismemberment:the new terror campaign" May 13/04 has a url as follows:
http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13372

That's the nature of the enemy, folks. The enemy has to be broken, not coddled. I'll post the article properly elsewhere for all to read.

c. And #18, I agree with you completely. Humiliation is not torture, much less severe torture.

IMHO, Bush should not have caved to international and internal pressure last week to voluntarily give Iraqi POW's Geneva Convention protections. Only uniformed Republican Guard at the initial stages of the war as well as innocent civilians throughout the war are protected by the Geneva Conventions.

Maybe I tried to include too many things in my # 17 post. There are 4 Geneva Conventions. They cover the rules of war as they apply to neutral medical personnel and the sick and wounded armed forces in the field and at sea [I and II]; POW’s [III]; and civilians[IV].

In 1977, two Additional Protocols were added to the 4 Geneva Conventions. Protocol I expanded the definition of POW’s per Geneva Conventions III to include un-uniformed insurgents and Protocol II enhanced protections for civilians per Geneva Convention IV.
Though Iraq and the USA were signatories to all 4 Geneva Conventions, neither nation ratified Protocols I and II. Un-uniformed combatants that are captured in Iraq fall under Additional Protocols I and II, to which neither the USA nor Iraq are signatories. They get whatever POW treatment the USA chooses to offer them.

The Abu POW folks, from what I have heard and read, were neither uniformed Republican Guard soldiers nor were they innocent civilians herding camels on the desert and minding their own beeswax.

I believe it was Spengler who published an article in Asia Times about the only Achilles heel that Muslim extremists have, and that is the fear of humiliation. They fear neither torture nor death. So it follows that the fear of humiliation may be our most effective weapon against them to extract valuable information, and now we can no longer use that coersive technique in Iraq.

I wish that what Mike says were untrue but I think he heard President Bush's words right.
Posted by rex 2004-05-15 8:36:00 PM||   2004-05-15 8:36:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Great points, rex, but I need a link to Bush's exact words, if not a quote, too.
I want to see in black and white that President Bush said we would treat every detainee at Abu Ghraib under GC rules.
(I think you'll find that he did not.)
And also, even if Iraq had been a signatory to any of the GC Protocols, wouldn't that be the old Iraq under Saddam which no longer exists?
Niether Bremer nor the IPC has signed the GC for the new provisional government, to my knowledge.
Posted by Jen  2004-05-15 8:41:31 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-05-15 8:41:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Jen[#29]...I am not sure what Mike source [#25] is referring to for his comments, here's what I found in a May 15/04 Op-Ed NYT article written by the President's Chief Counsel, Albert Gonzales, entitled "The Rules of Law and the Rule of Law".

Gonzales appears to say that all Iraqi detainees will have Geneva III POW protections accorded to them irrespective of the fact that they may be non-Republican Guard soldiers ie. unlawful combatants.

I'm not sure from his words if foreign fighters caught in Iraq would be accorded these same protections, but I think he does, maybe, perhaps.

Gonzales gets kind of wishey washey when he talks about Iraq. He says Iraq is a different situation from Afghanistan and he implies that any abuse of a prisoner in Iraq is "abhorrent."

Gonzales does not make any reference to the Additional Protocols I and II. So I guess Gonzales has advised the President to ignore legal loopholes offered by Iraq and the USA not being signatories. Rather it appears that Gonzales has advised the President to take the higher road for any detainees caught in Iraq. Sort of, maybe, perhaps, probably. Go figure.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/15/opinion/15GONZ.html?th=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1084622910-dZ2bMvN0jKCB+vQRGbeW1Q

"...With questions being raised regarding the treatment of detainees in both Guantánamo Bay and Iraq, it is important to revisit the origins of what has been a consistent and humane policy by the United States on this matter...In February 2002, President Bush determined that Al Qaeda terrorists were not prisoners of war under the treaty known as the Third Geneva Convention. Al Qaeda could not be a party to the convention because it is not a state. The president also determined that while the Taliban — Al Qaeda's collaborators — were covered by the treaty, they did not qualify as prisoners of war under the terms of the treaty. It stipulates that combatants must distinguish themselves from the civilian population, which the Taliban clearly did not...Despite being a crucial front in the war on terrorism, Iraq presents a very different situation. Both the United States and Iraq are parties to the Geneva Conventions. The United States recognizes that these treaties are binding in the war for the liberation of Iraq. There has never been any suggestion by our government that the conventions do not apply in that conflict. Although recent news reports from Iraq have caused some to question our commitment to the treaties, make no mistake that the United States is bound to observe the rules of war in the Geneva Conventions. The abuse of any prisoner is abhorrent. Americans, including the hundreds of thousands who serve with dedication and honor in our armed forces, viewed the images of the treatment of detainees in Abu Ghraib prison with disbelief and anger. The United States government understands and seeks to comply with its legal obligations and will act swiftly and responsibly under the law to address violations of those obligations. We must both protect our citizens from attacks by terrorists and protect the values our citizens cherish..."




Posted by rex 2004-05-15 11:21:50 PM||   2004-05-15 11:21:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 This is an excerpt from the New York Times of May 12, describing a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee on May 11:

Mr. [Stephen A.] Cambone, [the under secretary of defense for intelligence] and other military officials said the interrogation techniques approved for use in Iraq were straight out of the Army manual and followed the Geneva Conventions. In that respect, he said, they differed from harsher techniques, like sleep deprivation and forcing prisoners to disrobe entirely for interrogations, that are authorized for use at the American prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
Lt. Gen. Lance Smith, the deputy commander of American forces in the Middle East, said that under a policy issued last Oct. 12, the only extraordinary measure authorized for use in Iraq was placing prisoners in solitary confinement for more than 30 days. That step required the approval of the American commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, but General Smith said he was not aware of it ever being used.

I remember seeing the committee's senators question Cambone on this subject on TV. The senators asked whether the Geneva Conventions would be applied to prisoners suspected of placing bombs, prisoners suspected of committing ordinary crimes, and so forth and so on. To each such question Cambone answered that, yes, this and that and the other prisoner would be treated according to the Geneva Conventions.

I wish I could provide the hearing transcripts here, but I can't. You'll have to take my word that the issue was discussed in great detail, and the answers were clear and consistent.

People writing in this thread are making various distinctions between normal prisoners of war, on one hand, and terrorists and criminals, etc., on the other hand. These are reasonable distinctions for you to make, but I am telling you that the Bush Administration has decided not to make such distinctions in Iraq. The only exceptional prisoners are Al Qaeda members.

The Bush Administration has not approved sleep deprivation, uncomfortable positions, bright lights, white noise, nakedness, or any such methods -- whether you want to call them torture, abuse, harsh treatment or whatever else you want to call them. The only extraordinary method approved is solitary confinement.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-05-16 12:26:33 AM||   2004-05-16 12:26:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#32 I forgot to add this link to my post #31
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-05-16 12:28:24 AM||   2004-05-16 12:28:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#33 It is what I feared, #31.

As I've said before, I have no doubt that the President could legally choose not to grant POW status to Iraqi POW's. I've read that previously Rumsfield and the military believed that Iraqi unlawful combatants, like those in Afghanistan, fall outside the G.C., most likely because they know AP I and II were never ratified by Iraq or the USA.

But Bush, as Gonzales says, has decided that Iraq is a unique situation and he is VOLUNTARILY extending the protections of Geneva Conventions AP I and II, without being legally compelled to do so.

I'm not sure if it's because coalition partners threatened withdrawing support because they had signed AP I and II and were upset about the POW "humiliation" scandal. Or perhaps it's Bush's Christian sensibilities that were shocked by the sexual nuances of the photos. Or perhaps, he feels he needs to redeem himself with the Iraqi gov't officials, lest they boot the US forces out of Iraq come July 01. Who knows what motivated President Bush to be so generous with G.C. protections?

Taking POW's in Iraq now is useless, for intelligence value, that is.

As other posters suggested, now Al Queda operatives will claim they are Iraqis who have lost their papers and it would be hard to prove otherwise, because so many Iraqi gov't buildings had their offices burned, materials and files vandalized shortly after the invasion. Al Queda are not the only bad guys in this picture. Baathists themselves are pretty nasty folks, as are Saddam's ragtag Feyadeen. Come to think of it, Shiite militia are creepy, too.

I think this issue illustrates the conflict the Bowden's article mentioned in prosecuting a war: ie. warrior[military] versus civilian[politicians, JAG]points of view. Civilian camp just took won. Rumsfield may volunteer to resign if he is forced to fight a war in Iraq like a wuss. The only Senator on Rumsfield's side on the Armed Forces Commitee and who has a grip on the reality of fighting and winning a war is Senator Inhofe. The media ridicules Inhofe, of course.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0513IraqAbuseInhofe13-ON.html
"Iraqi prison scandal overblown, senator says"


Posted by rex 2004-05-16 1:26:30 AM||   2004-05-16 1:26:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#34 Now, men, rex and Mike, I wouldn't go off half-cocked.
We still don't know definitively that President Bush is going to have all Iraqi detainees under the GC, do we?
Or that anyone, least of all SecDef Rummy, is "wussing out."
The President merely vowed that the Abu Ghraib abuses we've seen in the photos will be stopped and that detainees there will be treated "humanely."
What both Bush and Rumsfeld never forget is that their first duty is to protect Americans, both our soldiers and we civilians.
Getting intell about saving American lives takes priority over mollycaudling terrorist detainees.
(Rummy better not resign! He has both the President's confidence and that of 2/3 of the American people. The Senate knows what it can do and that's get over itself!
The Senate can't hire or fire the Cabinet!)
Posted by Jen  2004-05-16 1:43:34 AM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-05-16 1:43:34 AM|| Front Page Top

19:28 Jen
19:12 Anonymous5653
02:59 Anonymous4908
08:37 Shipman
04:31 Jen
03:24 borgboy
02:46 WUZZALIB
01:43 Jen
01:26 rex
00:44 Mike Sylwester
00:28 Mike Sylwester
00:26 Mike Sylwester
00:21 Mark Espinola
00:16 RWV
00:14 Mark Espinola
23:59 Faisal the Goyem
23:48 Faisal the Goyem
23:45 Mike Sylwester
23:43 Mike Sylwester
23:21 rex
23:20 Alaska Paul
23:18 Alaska Paul
23:12 Alaska Paul
23:09 11A5S









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com