People always talk about our "standing" in the world. Do people really give a damn about our standing in the world? Is anyone, anywhere really naive enough to believe that those who hate us and those who love us will make their decisions based upon something like this? Their blind passion about this "issue" is a sign they'll hate us regardless.

Like this blog, for instance. The author here is adopting the lies the rest of the irrational Bush haters embrace. The question here isn't about thumb screws and the rack and what any reasonable person would call "torture". The question here is about language in international conventions that leave the US open to war crimes charges if commit the slightest cultural or religious faux pa.

This blog is an excellent example of why we really shouldn't give a damn about our "standing" with the rest of the world. The people who hate us are going to hate us because of their irrational biases and unreasonable, Disneyesque expectations of reality. You can't reason with people who don't form their opinions based upon reason, and people who flock to inflammatory issues like lemmings are led by their hate, not their reason, and they made up their minds before they even see any proof.

That works well for this author, because there is no link, there is no description of what "torture" constitutes. It just relies on the reader's imagination, and then rushes along hoping they'll just assume Bush is talking about what they're thinking. The blogger is talking to people who will jump at the first chance to hate Bush with or without fact or reason. Why bother with our standing with such people?

I'd add, since the author didn't, that the hubbub is about Article 3 of the Geneva Convention which reads:

"outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment."

Look at our situation in the US when dealing with political correctness, "harassment', etc., and decide if you think that is at all specific enough of a guide to go by. Think about our concepts of "cultural sensitivity" as opposed to those around the world. By accepting such a broad statement we'd be basically accepting the standards of whoever wanted to toss something at us.

McCain's bill simply wants to take that at face value. That means we do what we think is fine and then suffer the slings and arrows of a moronic peanut gallery of nations who think what we do is barbaric. Bush wants more specific language. Which makes more sense when you are talking about facing war crimes tribunals, defining something, or leaving it vague?

So, from that, this person gets "Bush: We need torture as a tool". Does Calor really come away thinking Bush is promoting torture, or does Calor really understand the issue and is writing inflammatory drek for political exercise? I think the lack of information shows that the only way Calor can nurture outrage is to obscure the reality as much as possible.

It just relies on the reader's imagination, and then rushes along hoping they'll just assume Bush is talking about what they're thinking.

What exactly is Bush talking about? I think its a little more than the "slightest cultural or religious faux pa". I agree its probably not so extreme and abhorrent as thumb screws and the rack.... after all that can be easily accomplished through "rendition".

I think the lack of information in the blog shows that the only way to protect the content is to obscure the reality as much as possible. - Bakerstreet

Well he may be frightened of 'linking vs. thinking', but, instead, he can only be accused of speaking his mind and asking an inflammatory question without reference. It's more then what has been provided by cut'n'paste kiddies providing off-topic references to you-tube.

Come on Bakerstreet, the question is about what conduct we will allow our Military Personnel. Right. When you allow one in Uniform to act in a particular fashion that is unreasonable you not only set a standard, internationally, to belly up to, but our own national and local standards.

This blog is an excellent example of why we really shouldn't give a damn about our "standing" with the rest of the world. - Bakerstreet

We should give a damn about our world standing - particularly if we're going to try world policing and nation building. We're the most influential economy and number one superpower at this moment, but that doesn't mean we can fly a finger in the face of the entire globe. Why do we spend so much on foreign aide and trade agreements?

Bush wants more specific language.

Bush wants to rewrite the Geneva Conventions to suit US foreign policy. Perhaps then China will do the same when dealing with Tibetan dissenters. Perhaps then Lebanon will do the same to suit its needs with respect to Israeli "detainees". Its a can of worms that doesn't need opening. As McCain said

"Weakening the Geneva protections is not only unnecessary, but would set an example to other countries, with less respect for basic human rights, that they could issue their own legislative reinterpretations,”

It isn't about weakening anything. It is about bowing to the standards of other nations who read the line:

"outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment."

far, far differently than we do. If you look at how some people want to use the international criminal court you'll find that these issues NEED, DESPERATELY to be defined in a clear manner. There are innumerable problems with allowing the perpetually hateful around the world to dream up what a war crime is.

For instance, there are those right now who believe that the sanctions against the Iraqis during the 1990's was a war crime. Others believe that the ICC standard of:

"the war crime of the transfer of parts of the civilian population of an occupying power into occupied territory"

creates a circumstance where the existence of Israel is a war crime. People around the world are constantly looking for minor "abuses" of international standards in order to lash out against nations that they consider to be enemies of their world view. Many of them are WORSE abusers of human rights, like China.

There's nothing about promoting torture in trying to make the shoddy, loose definitions of the Geneva Convention more clearly laid out. The blogger here doesn't want people to understand that; Calor just wants to associate Bush in people's minds with torture, and can't say too much lest they realize the issue is far more grey.

I, for one, don't relish relinquishing moral oversight of American forces to nations that hate us based upon definitions that can be twisted to make anything a crime. Perhaps Calor does. His behavior here apes the way some nations want to abuse the loose definitions for political effect.

BakerStreetSeptember 16, 2006 16:29:53

Go BakerStreet! Go! I think the author abandoned this one after your comments, and the indefensibility of the stated (lying) position.

It isn't about weakening anything.

Yes it is.

I cant actually find a link (not that Ive looked particularly hard) to the actual bill itself (perhaps you can point me to it) so Im relying on what the newspapers are telling me and what they are saying Link (LA Times), etc. They say currently a prisoner has to have made available to him the evidence against him for any crime of which he is accused. The bill Bush wants to introduce attempts to circumvent this "right" such that any informaton the Government deems classified can be withheld from the accused and yet still be used to convict him.

As I understand it Article 3 also further prohibits “the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized people.” Bushs' bill wants to able dispense with this and bring in military tribunals with the power to dish out death penalty sentences even though your own Supreme Court recently banned this (which as we all know is why hes going to Congress).

It is about bowing to the standards of other nations who read the line

The Supreme Court is the highest judicial branch in and of the United States. In adhering to the articles of the Geneva Conventions your hardly subjecting yourselves to the will of "other" nations.

Baker has done a good job of debating a lot of what is raised here, but I'll offer the following.

When you are fighting a war against people that have no morals and no will not exercise restraint in their fight then you have to be willing to fight back with every possible tool you can imagine and some you'd rather not imagine.

Taking any one (or more) option off the table just weakens your ability to respond to the threat that is out there. Your opponents need to understand that there is absolutely no chance to win no matter what method they use. If they don't feel that way, they'll keep coming at you until they've broken your will and spirit and they will wind up destroying you and your belief system.

Re: reply #8...

And to all that I'd say... so the f*ck what? Find me a link, please, and perhaps I can discuss it better, but I find it nauseating that these so-called rights being guaranteed by these people AREN'T EVEN RIGHTS in the nations that are often condemning the US.

If you are going to plead the case of common human decency with me you are wasting your time. There is no such thing. Any of these nations would toss out these standards in a heartbeat if the threat against them were dire enough. They only use humanitarian standards now as political weapons and that is something we should not allow by expressing an intent to be officially judged by them.

The perspective here seems to be will we be judged by our own standards, or will we relinquish judgment to parties who have political and economic interests in our downfall. To most people I think the answer would be obvious; we should see to our own and allow them to see to their own. Let their nation's wellbeing and security be the hallmark of the success of their system.

REGARDLESS

I'm still curious about this torture thing. The title of the blog is "Bush: We need torture as a tool"; written as if such is a quote or can be construed from Bush's actions in this endeavor. While ScoffPiggy raises questions that some people will definately have, it still doesn't amount to "torture", does it?

The main point of this blog seems to be "Today Bush outlined that US interrogators need to be able to use torture in order to get information out of captives." So where's the beef? Taking a powder, Calor? Come back up your point.

but I find it nauseating that these so-called rights being guaranteed by these people AREN'T EVEN RIGHTS in the nations that are often condemning the US.

This link has all the signatories to the Geneva Conventions if thats what you mean?
http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/texts/doc_geneva_con_sp.html

If you otherwise mean the right not to be tortured then that would fall under the Universal Human Rights.

They only use humanitarian standards now as political weapons and that is something we should not allow by expressing an intent to be officially judged by them.

But hold on after the whole WMD debacle these humanitarian standards are precisely the political weapon Bush used to justify the invasion of Iraq. US foreign policy has used the might of its military to ensure another soveriegn state adhers to such humantarian standards and now when to doesn't suit them Bush tries to say and you appear to agree with him, "aw who gives a f**k? You dont want the US to be judged by the types of humantarian standards that it used as a context to invade another country??

If these kinds of rights and treaties are so easily thrown away then why trot half around the world to enforce them?

"This link has all the signatories to the Geneva Conventions if thats what you mean?"

And the loose definition of what torture, dignity, etc., within the conventions are exactly what is at issue. No one would have imagined then the standards that some would like to impose now. Such an agreement is only valid so long as it isn't used to defeat the original purpose, and for nations like China and many others, that is what is happening.

"But hold on after the whole WMD debacle these humanitarian standards are precisely the political weapon Bush used to justify the invasion of Iraq."

I don't like the excuses either. We needed no excuse to go into Iraq and do what should have been done in the original Gulf War. We just offered them all facetiously to help hesitant nations, including our own, with their weepy voters.

Nations like France and Germany will make tons of diplomatic inroads with monsters like Hussein, but will in the same breath condemn the US for minor grievances. We've done the same thing, as I am sure you can point out. Thus the standards in question are meaningless, aren't they? Why tolerate them?

I think there are a LOT of problems with US foreign policy, but they are OUR problems, and the accountability resides here. The last thing we want to do is farm out our conscience to nations who will use these standards for political and economic gain and not keep to them at all themselves. The current international climate leave China writing humanitarian reports on the US to distract from their own monstrosities.

The problem here, to restate more directly, is that the oversight of our actions does not reside within our own standards when loosely interpreted international standards are imposed. Why should we tolerate having our soldiers brought up before the ICC when other nations simply refuse to keep them, yet STILL beat us about the head and shoulders with them?

At one time we had allies that we could count upon to at least loosely agree with our set of values. Now, unfortunately, the world has changed and nations like France are more apt to agree with nations whose good graces would benefit TotalFinaElf. The issue here isn't torture or humanitarianism, the issue here is manipulating world opinion for gain.

If it were about humanitarianism and torture, I might be apt to agree. Obviously it isn't, given our detractors are usually either committing worse acts or overlooking worse acts by their own allies. The world dwells upon our sins when events occur throughout the Middle East, Asia and Africa that are far worse. Isn't that transparent to you?

And the loose definition of what torture, dignity, etc., within the conventions are exactly what is at issue.

If you mean whats at issue with you and Calor then Im just as interested as you to hear precisely what Bush wants to be able to do to detainees to make them talk. Im hoping Calor can clear that up. However my concerns with the bill in general is that its not just simply requesting a clearer set of guidelines and definitions by which to operate but that it is seeking to introduce new capabilities as well... such as the military tribunals, such as conviction without the right to defend oneself against evidence because its been withheld. This bill is much more about an extension of power and circumvention of basic judicial rights than it is about clarity of phrase.

If the people captured are so obviously evil terrorists, plotting and scheming Americas downfall then surely its a simple matter to prove it? Bush is now saying the Government shouldn't have to if the basis of their charges is considered too sensitive. Just trust Us, we're the Government and we know their guilty. Oh and by the way we also request that we be allowed to order their death as well. Couple that with a request to put more coersive pressure on individuals (the exact nature of which is still unknown) and the apparent ability to detain without charge and you make for a very sick little system of so called justice indeed. And you have to have justice even for the worst amongst us otherwise whose to say you're right? Without justice it might well be that its actually us that are the criminal. We who are the terrorists.

The issue here isn't torture or humanitarianism, the issue here is manipulating world opinion for gain.

With this i couldn't agree more but you dont seriously expect me (after the last 5 years) to believe that its the US whose been the "victim" of that manipulation do you?

"If you mean whats at issue with you and Calor then Im just as interested as you to hear precisely what Bush wants to be able to do to detainees to make them talk. Im hoping Calor can clear that up."

Me too. I wanted to preemptively rip into what he'd say so I looked for 15 minutes or so through various news sources and all I could come up with is stuff like this blog, and real news reports that spoke about the parts of the Geneva Convention I listed.

I'm thinking this is abandoned, and for good reason. The point was simply to, yet again, associate Bush with an outrage in drive-by fashion.

"However my concerns with the bill in general is that its not just simply requesting a clearer set of guidelines and definitions by which to operate but that it is seeking to introduce new capabilities as well... such as the military tribunals, such as conviction without the right to defend oneself against evidence because its been withheld."

I don't think it is any kind of new extension as much as it is simply an outlining of what has gone on during warfare for ages. Granted, a loophole has occurred because of the terrorism thing regarding prisoner of war status, but in previous wars you wouldn't have seen non-military resistance treated like PoWs often, they'd have just been shot.

And sadly that is what will start happening. Once we get this all nicely smoothed out according to the most liberal definition of torture, PoW status, etc., you'll just see more and more of these people shot in the back of the head on the battlefield. People don't tolerate risking their lives to capture people so that they can be pampered and released to go back to setting roadside bombs again...

"If the people captured are so obviously evil terrorists, plotting and scheming Americas downfall then surely its a simple matter to prove it?"

Are you kidding? Watch much CourtTV? Remember Robert Durst?. A neighbor he'd been arguing with, shot with his pistol, in his kitchen, after which he dismembers the body and dumps it in the bay. Guilty? Heck no!

Imagine in a court system like that trying to convict people who never set foot on American soil. You can't try terrorists who committed their crimes in Afghanistan according to US laws. So what choice is there, just let them continue what they are doing?

Like I say, eventually we'll just kill them when we have no ability to hold them. There's really no way that we can just wave at them in the street and let them continue killing people.

"And you have to have justice even for the worst amongst us otherwise whose to say you're right? Without justice it might well be that its actually us that are the criminal. We who are the terrorists."

Depends on who you are calling "us". If we have reached the point that it is now the grand, international us, I can see your point. I don't think, however, we owe civilian 'justice' to an enemy on a battlefield. I don't believe they should be afforded the protection of a Constitution they have no connection to.