On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 05:21:06PM -0400, judd@wadsworth.org wrote:
> On 3 Apr, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 09:10:32AM -0400, judd@wadsworth.org wrote:
> > ...
> >
> >> > * Why does everything need to be some sort of vast conspiracy?
> >> > Remember Hanlon's Razor? It could have just as easily been
> >> > someone overlooking something, someone going against orders,
> >> > whatever.
> >>
> >> I'm a scientist, we use Occam's razor, not Hanlon's. :-) Since
> >> we were discussing a presidential order, which referenced justice
> >> department memos (which are of dubious legal merit, anyway), I don't
> >> see how that can be "someone going against orders.
> >>
> > I'm sorry, but who decided that the memos were of "dubious legal merit"?
> > The media? Please forgive me if I consider their motives suspect.
> >
>
> The American Bar Association
> At least 12 former presidents of the ABA
> Many military lawyers in the pentagon
> The US State Department
> Amnesty International
> Red Cross International
> etc, etc, etc.
>
> One analysis of it is at http://lawofwar.org/Torture_Memos_analysis.htm
>
Well, the analysis is flawed. Here is the key part of their argument:
They controlled a substantial geographic territory and population,
enacted and enforced laws and mandates, carried on relatively
complex military operations, appointed persons to governmental posts
and received diplomatic recognition from several nations.
The flaw is that only Pakistan recognized the Taliban as the legitimate
government. At some point in the past Saudi Arabia and the UAE had
recognized the Taliban, but later changed their minds. By their
argument, the Kurdish portions of Iraq and parts of Colombia would be
considered separate countries.
> > Now, if there has been a court decision which invalidates the Justice
> > Department's opinion, then you have something.
> >
>
> As far as I know, it has not been tested in court, but as soon as
> it became public the White House and Justice department tried to
> distance themselves from it.
>
> > > * In what way have the prisoners' GC protections allegedly been
> >> > withheld?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Torture.
> >
> > Forgive me if I wait for this to be proven in court.
> >
>
> Charles Graner was convicted of Assault, conspiracy, maltreatment of
> detainees, committing indecent acts and dereliction of duty.
>
> Some of the acts which resulted in these convictions would most
> likely qualify as a war crime under the US War Crimes Act. IIRC,
> some other Abu Ghraib guards were also convicted on similar charges.
>
> As far as I know, you are correct that no one has yet been
> convicted (or even charged) with the war crime of torture.
>
Umm, one person convicted of wrong doing does not create a systematic
denial of human rights. Being that he was charged with dereliction of
duty, he was doing something he should not have been doing or failed to
something he should have been. In either case, his actions were not
keeping with established policy.
> >> Humiliating and degrading treatment.
> >
>
> >
> > My perspective is this. We start off treating them nice and
> > professionally. When they start acting like animals, then we treat
> > them as such. By all accounts, the prisoners are treated quite
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Which accounts are these?
>
The accounts of the guards. Heck, while the Red Cross doesn't come
right out and recognize the professional conduct of the staff at Gitmo,
it is somewhat evident. Their chief complain about the detention of
prisoners at Gitmo is that they are not allowed sufficient contact with
family members/loved one. If that is their biggest gripe, I would say
that prisoners are being treated pretty well on the whole.
> > professionally at first. It is only when they become vicious towards
> > the staff that incidents of retribution or what might be considered
> > humiliating and degrading treatment happen.
> >
>
> Examples?
>
I will try and track this down. I read it in a magazine, but I forget
which one. They had a first hand account from a sailor who worked as a
guard in the facility.
> > ...
>
> >> And what I'd like to know, is what the US gains by not giving them at
> >> least common article III protections?
> >>
> > Nothing. I am in agreement that GC protections should be accorded.
> >
>
> At least we agree on this.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature