Comments on: Ten cents a dance.

By: moe99

moe99 — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 03:23:51 +0000

Mark, the rule of law in the US, which I invoked and not the Constitution, includes the Congressional ratification of treaties, such as the much neglected Geneva Treaty governing the treatment of POWs, regardless of where they are captured or detained . We have abrogated and trampled on the rights we agreed to provide such persons and we are shameful in the world’s eyes, for not just doing so, but for trumpeting our “cleanness” in this regard for so many years. Lo, how the mighty are fallen.

And you can pull a John Woo all you like, but all the legalisms and distinctions you will try to draw are nothing more than turds in dixie cups.

Here are the applicable provisions, mark.

GENERAL PROTECTION OF PRISONERS OF WAR

Article 12

Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them.

Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is a party to the Convention and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention. When prisoners of war are transferred under such circumstances, responsibility for the application of the Convention rests on the Power accepting them while they are in its custody.

Nevertheless if that Power fails to carry out the provisions of the Convention in any important respect, the Power by whom the prisoners of war were transferred shall, upon being notified by the Protecting Power, take effective measures to correct the situation or shall request the return of the prisoners of war. Such requests must be complied with.

Article 13

Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

Article 14

Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour. Women shall be treated with all the regard due to their sex and shall in all cases benefit by treatment as favourable as that granted to men. Prisoners of war shall retain the full civil capacity which they enjoyed at the time of their capture. The Detaining Power may not restrict the exercise, either within or without its own territory, of the rights such capacity confers except in so far as the captivity requires.

Article 15

The Power detaining prisoners of war shall be bound to provide free of charge for their maintenance and for the medical attention required by their state of health.

By: Gasman

Gasman — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:02:25 +0000

mark,
I find it rather astonishing that you would claim that it is entirely respectful to the constitution to inflict upon non-citizens what is decidedly illegal for citizens. If the constitution has any meaning, then its precepts should be equally valid for all, whether or not they are U.S. citizens. True, the constitution is only legally binding for U.S. citizens, but does it seem just to then claim we can do whatever the hell we want to non-citizens?

The Declaration of Independence states that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Note that the operative phrase is “ALL men are created equal,” not just some. Accidents of geographical birth or naturalization do not preclude unalienable rights.

Parsing what is “legal” does not render justice. I would have expected somewhat better from a lawyer.

By: mark

mark — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:32:28 +0000

moe- I don't claim that "torture trumps the rule of law in the US." Actually, I'm not even sure what you mean by the assertion. ("No officer, your traffic laws don't apply to me. I'm a torturer.)? I questioned the absurd notion that the "rest of the world" rejects torture. And gasman is wrong when he says the Constitution applies to "all." It doesn't. It always applies to US citizens in US jurisdictions. It sometimes applies to non-US citizens who are in US jurisdictions. It sometimes applies to US Citizens who are in non-US jurisdictions. The Constitution didn't do shit for me when I was detained for several hours trying to leave Siem Reap. Having a friend at the State Department did. If you choose to marry a Saudi and move to his country, your Constitution is meaningless if you try to drive a car or travel without your husband's permission. Cops in the US are constrained by standards that are ultimately Constitutional ones. Among other things they prohibit excessive force and unreasonable search and seizure. Those restrictions have absolutely no application to a Seal team operating in the mountains along the Pakistani border. Those guys are limited by laws Congress might see fit to pass, treaties to which we are a party and military law. Spying and espionage by a US citizen against the US government is a capital offense. Directed against a foreign enemy it may get you a medal Will one of you Constitutional heavyweights please reference the portion of the Constitution that prohibits anything in terms of the treatment of a non-US citizen captured and held outside the US? The "no waterboarding of terrorists captured while trying to kill US troops" section may be down by the "bombs away with atomic weapons on heavily populated cities" provisions. I'm pretty sure that Obama knows that his options for dealing with a belligerent Iran are far greater than they are for handling criticism from the editorial pages of the Chicago Tribune or a riot in St. Louis. Try reading "Sole Survivor". On the way to their target, that Seal team was stumbled upon by a man and a boy, ostensibly a farmer and his son. The Seals took a vote on whether to kill them or let them move on. They let them go. A few hours later the Seals were ambushed by 200 Taliban. Nasty business requiring nasty decisions. Compared with "the rest of the world" we have a pretty admirable record of balancing morality and the necessities of war. Those who currently claim higher moral ground are also those who depend upon us to defend them.

By: Jeff (the mild-mannered one)

Jeff (the mild-mannered one) — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:25:49 +0000

(whimper, low) no, not annual reports … has it come to this?

Really — i hate annual reports, except when they pay up front. Enough do to keep me writing some. But some people feel that way about grant boilerplate, which i can happily peck out all afternoon without serious indigestion.

By: del

del — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:44:37 +0000

Agreed gasman. There was a time during the Bush years when our nation of laws had morphed into something very sinister, with apparent public approval. I’m haunted by a statistic that 74% of Americans approved of torture to prevent terrorism after 9/11. Despaired so much I bordered on nihilism — or something like it. Didn’t think Obama would win early on. But, wait now, YES WE DID.

By: Gasman

Gasman — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:03:09 +0000

When we began torturing prisoners, we became what we said we abhorred. Likewise when we openly invaded a sovereign state without justification.

“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” –Thomas Jefferson

Ironically, the very torture committed by Bush, Cheney, et al., might be the ticket to freedom for some truly dangerous terrorists. We are a nation of laws. All, including the president and vice president, are bound by the constitution. If we have an executive that can bypass constitutional strictures and requirements, then our entire structure of government is at risk.

If torture was such a damn good idea, why have Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, et al. gone to such great lengths to cloak their involvement?

By: Gena

Gena — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:56:45 +0000

Another freelance stone to turn -
Many advertising agencies (in particular, smaller ones) like to have outside writers in their back pocket for things like newsletters, annual reports, advertorials and press releases. Stuff copywriters basically hate to do.

By: del

del — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:59:43 +0000

moe99, the justification for torture, and canard, that is often given, and that mark may invoke is the following doomsday hypothetical: A man knows that a weapon of mass destruction has been deployed that will soon cause a gazillion people to perish — may he be tortured if he refuses to disclose a means to prevent the mass destruction?
This only happens in James Bond movies (along with comely espionage agents with names like, well, you know). To all those people I would say that it is imperative that certain things should be presumptively unlawful in our society. “Legal excuse” must be for the accused to assert.

By: del

del — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:41:13 +0000

As for torture, mark, the overarching point is that it should be unlawful. And for those who do it their liberty should be in jeopardy. The Bush adminstration retreated from modern civilized norms by institutionally sanctioning torture. Even teens understand such modern civilized norms and that’s why they menace and threaten with the warning, “I’m gonna go medieval on yo’ ass.“
Bush and Cheney think that they’re striking fear into the hearts of would be enemies of the U.S. with such tactics, but I think it only encourages them.

By: moe99

moe99 — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:26:02 +0000

Oh, and mark, you’re an attorney. Want to explain to the rest of us how torture trumps the rule of law in the US? I await your response with bated breath.