Ever since the Abu Ghraib pictures were revealed, the Bush administration has simply used the 'few bad apples' excuse to explain to the world that it opposes torture. Then, when the McCain torture bill seemed to have finally been accepted by the White House after much debate last year, it appeared Bush was indeed making a statement against institutionalized torture to make up for his former WH counsel's ambiguousness about the matter in the infamous Bybee memo and the related legal opinions that stripped away detainee rights.
That was not to be, however. Bush issued a signing statement this past January: 'A senior administration official later confirmed that the president believes the Constitution gives him the power to authorize interrogation techniques that go beyond the law to protect national security.'
And now, even after some US officials were berated over their human rights abuses by the UN committee that deals with cruel and inhumane treatement just a few weeks ago, the military is signaling that it may just omit a line or two of the Geneva Conventions in order to treat detainees in any way they decide might be appropriate.
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon has decided to omit from new detainee policies a key tenet of the Geneva Convention that explicitly bans "humiliating and degrading treatment," according to knowledgeable military officials, a step that would mark a further, potentially permanent, shift away from strict adherence to international human rights standards.
The decision could culminate a lengthy debate within the Defense Department but will not become final until the Pentagon makes new guidelines public, a step that has been delayed. However, the State Department fiercely opposes the military's decision to exclude Geneva Convention protections and has been pushing for the Pentagon and White House to reconsider, the Defense Department officials acknowledged.
This road being considered is one taken by cowards.
I still remember the angry, teeth-clenched speech given by Senator Joe Biden at a committee hearing about the fact that the Geneva Conventions are not only in place to protect foreign countries' soldiers - that they are there, in fact, to protect American soldiers as well. And, if Americans truly believe they are the standard-bearers for global human rights, they need to set the example.
Any move away from the spirit of the Geneva Conventions, which are not meant to be edited by countries who signed on, not only sends a confused message to the world, it sets up US soldiers to make some very difficult decisions. Are they bound by the conventions or the military training manual when the two are at odds? Can they choose to disobey orders if they feel the conventions have been disregarded or will they be treated as traitors? Have adequate definitions of these new proposed standards been made or will they be left unclear to create as much flexibility as possible? Does the military brass have so little confidence in their lawful interrogation techniques that they have to go beyond acceptable conventions to methods that have been proven to be useless in some attempt to be seen as being 'tough' on terror?
What has happened to America's morality?
That is the most important question in all of this.
There are some very dangerous, sadistic men in charge of military affairs in Washington. When do mutiny and insubordination become viable options?
No comments:
Post a Comment