[NOTE: “Talkshow with Spike Feresten,” in all its silly, joyfully tasteless glory premieres tonight at midnight on Fox. Enjoy, kids! Now:]
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Trying to stare down a revolt from fellow Republicans, President George W. Bush warned on Friday that time was running out for Congress to save a crucial CIA interrogation program for suspected terrorists.
…A day after a Senate committee rejected his pleas and endorsed legislation that would protect the rights of terrorism suspects, Bush argued strongly for his proposals.
…The Washington Post wrote in an editorial on Friday that Bush was basically lobbying for torture and that the CIA wants permission to interrogate detainees “with abusive practices that in the past have included induced hypothermia and ‘waterboarding,’ or simulated drowning.”
The legislation Bush rejects is backed by a trio of powerful Republican senators with military links — John McCain of Arizona, John Warner of Virginia and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina — as well Colin Powell, Bush’s first secretary of state and a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
—“Congress has got a decision to make. You want the program to go forward or not? I strongly recommend that this program go forward in order for us to be able to protect America,” Bush told a White House Rose Garden news conference.
The point, in case you missed it, is that the President is trying to protect America, and everyone else just wants to see us going spinning down the ol’ toilet. John McCain? Wussy appeasement monkey. Colin Powell? He even looks a little like an Arab if you squint your eyes and imagine him in those white Saudi robes. Democrats? Are they even officially American anymore?
Nope. The only guy who’s really got your back is the President. And there are only two minor rules that he needs to change. The first, as you know, is the Geneva Convention, particularly that poorly conceived “Common Article 3″ and its use of vague, artsy-fartsy words like “outrages upon personal dignity” and “humiliating and degrading treatment.” Think about it - if those terms aren’t redefined, it’s very unlikely that we’ll be able to humiliate and degrade our prisoners in order to get ‘em to talk. Not for much longer, anyway.
What McCain and his ilk are missing is that the consequences of redefining that rule can be eliminated by changing one other regulation: The so-called “golden rule.” You know, that “do unto others as you would have them do to you” hippie bullshit that’s been jammed down our throats by the liberal media elite? I don’t know where it originated, but I’d guess it was during the 60’s when everyone was smoking reefer and building the welfare state and real Americans were suddenly no longer entitled to the front of the bus… you know, those times. At least, that’s where this so-called “golden rule” seems to have its hemp-scented roots.
And it has to go, obviously. We can’t allow the enemy treat their prisoners the way that we want to treat ours. Nobody in this country would stand for it, and any politician who said that repeatedly almost-drowning Jimmy from Springfield and then inducing hypothermia so that he’s a quaking, vomiting, sobbing mess and then doing it again and again and again until he “talks” - well, any politician who said that we had to allow THAT simply because we were doing that to our prisoners… that politician would be lucky to survive to be brutally defeated on the next election day.
So the so-called “golden rule” has to go.
You might have noticed that I have referred to said rule only as the “so-called golden rule.” And I didn’t capitalize the “G” or the “R.” This was on purpose! Just like the Death Tax, the very name of the so-called “golden rule” needs to be called into question. It sounds too valuable and established. I propose that we go one step further and henceforth start referring to it as the “Traitor Coward Pussy Rule.” Imagine how that will sound on the talk shows! And all we have to do is use it regularly, and someday soon we’ll see this exchange on “Meet the Press:”
“Senator, how can you say you want to protect America when your record shows that you’ve consistently voted on the side of the Traitor Coward Pussy Rule?”
“Well, first of all I want to point out that I’ve always called that the Gold-”
“We can quibble over names all day. But you don’t deny that you’ve voted on the side of what I call the Traitor Coward Pussy Rule, do you?”
“Umm… technically, no, but -”
Game over.
Now… as for what we can replace the Traitor Coward Pussy Rule with. Some sort of rule-of-thumb morality that reflects these dangerous times. Something malleable and forgiving and above all security-minded. I think I have it. I give you… the Tin Rule:
“Do unto others as you hope they never get the chance to do unto you.”
You can thank me later. We’ve got work to do.





43 comments
George
September 16, 2006 at 5:13 pm
1Do unto others, then deny everything and shout-down anyone that just won’t let the issue drop.
Allison
September 16, 2006 at 5:26 pm
2Do unto others as you deserve to have done unto you.
SpottedDog
September 16, 2006 at 5:58 pm
3Do doo. Don’t take doo.
antiflake
September 16, 2006 at 8:40 pm
4We really need to dialog more intelligently about this “torture” question. Simply calling Bush evil (whatever the euphemism employed) while letting the terrorists off the hook may be very emotionally satisfying, but is it wise?
Traditionally, rules such as the Geneva Convention were set up to recognize that the poor sap fighting on the other side was, like most of the poor saps fighting on your side, just a victim of circumstance. He had no choice but to be stuffed into uniform, put through boot camp and sent off as cannon fodder. If captured, he had little of value to reveal about anything. Anything you might learn from him about his army’s tactics and strategy was mostly either inconsequential or pretty much known already. Furthermore, he was a highly replaceable cog in a big machine, representing very little incremental firepower over his uncaptured comrade still on the battlefield. And for the most part, that firepower was not directed at innocent civilians.
None of this applies as far as I can tell to the al Qaeda sort of detainee. These are people who sought out training in warfare, not to defend a country, but to spread mayhem against the “other”. Without their voluntary efforts, there would be no enemy. There would be no terror. There would be no threat of losing entire Western cities. Any of them might have very valuable information unavailable any other way. Any one of them might be the very one trained to drop the big one on tens of thousands of innocent civilians, or know who is and where he is, or be the organizer behind such a plan. Surely it is reasonable to at least consider harsher treatment for such an individual than for your typical uniformed grunt or petty criminal. As to how much harsher, reasonable people can differ, and of course one must always be mindful of losing one’s own humanity while trying to save mankind. But let’s not put terrorists in the same category as persons who are fighting honorably or as victims of circumstance. That truly would be a travesty of justice.
hedera
September 16, 2006 at 9:28 pm
5antiflake, you assume that the people we capture and interrogate actually are “the al Qaeda sort of detainee.” I think that’s a very iffy proposition. From what I read, the people we capture and interrogate are about as likely to be ordinary locals who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, as they are to be ravening jihadis. Afghan sheepherders. Iraqi street merchants.
I’m glad you agree that one must not lose one’s own humanity while trying to save mankind. But you miss the major point of the Geneva convention: it isn’t so much to protect the people we capture. It is to protect our own soldiers, if they should be captured by “the other side”. Right now if our soldiers are captured by jihadis and tortured or humiliated, we really have very little grounds on which to complain, given what we’ve done at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.
Not to mention the fact that every account I’ve read by trained interrogators has suggested that ill-treating a prisoner is a very poor way of getting information from him, because he will tell you anything you want to hear, just to get you to stop doing that. Why risk losing your humanity using interrogation techniques that don’t work??
David
September 16, 2006 at 10:14 pm
6You beat me to the punch, hedera. antiflake articulates very well the rationale for a very misguided understanding of the larger, and far more important, issues. Adam, on the other hand, grasps exactly what is at issue and at risk, and with his typical wit and intelligence. The difference between antiflake and you/Adam is generally referred to as insight.
Jury is still out on THE SHOW, but I did find myself laughing at some of the stuff, especially the old man stripping to the Pina Colada song and the Idiot Paparrazi, share the attitude of the show toward shows of that type, and loved our guy trying to return an adult video to a blue screen graphic (or whatever they’re called).
My take: second show will tell the tale.
David
September 16, 2006 at 10:49 pm
7Oh, yeah, totally off topic: Gators 21 - Vols 20!
SeattleDan
September 16, 2006 at 11:14 pm
8Sorry, antiflake, but my take is that this attempt by the administration is much more a CYA operation. Making our own amendments to the Geneva Convention… priceless! for Bush, so, when the time comes, he and his cronies won’t be charged with war crimes.
Maybe the Germans, prior to the end of the Second World War, should have employed this tactic. Anything we do is ok, because we always acted in the best interests of our people. No matter how much we made our prisoners suffer, no matter what humiliating circumstance we subjected them to.
Murray
September 17, 2006 at 6:52 am
9AntiF
According to CIA interrogators the best tools to get information are cigarettes and Coke (Coca-Cola).
The modern media has spread the myth that only sever torture will reveal the truth. (Ticking time bomb, suicide bomber who knows the location, who rather than die setting off the bomb, will spill the beans after enough pain is inflicted on him). It might make you feel better to be sticking it to those evildoers, but it doesn’t do much beyond that.
A lot of people in Gitmo were nothing but sheepherders who got swept up, (capture them all, let the CIA sort them out), and now have been released. I bet they make great good will ambassadors now.
Murray
September 17, 2006 at 6:54 am
10Michigan 41, Notre Dame 27, WHAHOO!
Hail to the Victors valiant, hail to the conquering heroes…….
David
September 17, 2006 at 8:27 am
11Murray,
Gators v. Woverines for the Big Kielbasa?
Harold
September 17, 2006 at 8:29 am
12It was neat seeing those pieces in better resolution than on YouTube. And “Electric Lincoln” worked better broken up. The second “Idiot Paparazzi” was surprising and fun.
Can’t wait for the HumAnimal Races!
AUOriole
September 17, 2006 at 9:17 am
13What I find interesting is how Mr Bush says that all he wants is to more well-define the language so that interrogators know what is and is not allowed. However “shocks the conscience” seems to me to be a very subjective standard. I don’t see how it clarifies anything. I think dropping tons of white phosphorous on potentially innocent civilians in an attempt to get a few potential insurgents shocks my conscience, but others seem to have no problem with it.
I wish I could have seen the show. But for some reason there such is an inexplicable infatuation with all things Tuscaloser football that our local FOX station would rather show a replay of a blowout victory over Louisiana-Monroe that happened 5 hours earlier than a new television show.
Edith, Mother of all Felbers
September 17, 2006 at 9:47 am
14In the immortal words of the sage, “Sting”: Ah, do do do, de dah dah dah, is all I have to say to you.
…Except that the show was fun!
(I know I’m expected to say that, but I do say that, and I mean it, because if I didn’t, I wouldn’t say anything but: “Ah, do, do, do, de, dah dah dah.”)
Sharon
September 17, 2006 at 9:48 am
15BushCo lives in a black&white world, and put us on notice of that several years ago. To wit: “You’re either with us or with the terrorists.” Recent updates include, but are not limited to, the following.
You’re either in favor of torture, or you want the terrorists to kill us all.
You’re either willing to give up your civil rights, or let the terrorists plan their dastardly plans, secure in the knowledge that no one is listening to them. (Except for British intelligence, of course.)
You’re either willing to continue to spend a few thousand young American lives and the equivalent of the GDP of several Western nations on the securing our oil supply for the next 50 years, or you want the terrorists to win.
George
September 17, 2006 at 11:58 am
16From an AP story today: “Seventy to 90 percent of the Iraq detentions in 2003 were “mistakes,” U.S. officers once told the international Red Cross.”
Assume the other 10-30% were true bad guys.
Second bit of info from the story: “Defenders of the system, which has only grown since soldiers’ photos of abuse at Abu Ghraib shocked the world, say it’s an unfortunate necessity in the battles to pacify Iraq and Afghanistan, and to keep suspected terrorists out of action.”
If it is necessary to treat them like this, doesn’t that imply that what we do is effective?
Last point: “But dozens of ex-detainees, government ministers, lawmakers, human rights activists, lawyers and scholars in Iraq, Afghanistan and the United States said the detention system often is unjust and hurts the war on terror by inflaming anti-Americanism in Iraq and elsewhere.”
See how it works? Maybe the U.S. thought it was doing the right thing at first. If so, I would think they would change course considering the outcome. But, no. Accountablilty and Values apply to others it seems. I really hate that the U.S. is becoming the world’s bully and bad example. To top it off, expressing doubt regarding our current government gets us labeled as unpatriotic.
Here is a link to the full AP story:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IN_AMERICAN_HANDS?SITE=VANOV&SE CTION=HOME
…………………………………………………….
As for the Adam Felber Show, I liked the bits between commercials. I didn’t realize how much of a show was advertisements these days. Yuck. I will catch future shows and hopefully can come up with a way to distract myself during the commercials. Sticking a pencil in my eye sounds like a good alternative, eh?
another Matt
September 17, 2006 at 12:34 pm
17Yep, we used to be the good guys ’cause we had the rule of law, justice, fair trials, & democracy.
Now we’re the good guys ’cause . . . Bush & Cheney & Rummy say we are.
Oh, and because the christianist god is on our side.
I felt more proud to be an American when they we all true. Critics could doubt the last two, but the first one could at least be argued without irony, prior to the reign of the current occupant.
Speaking of irony, islamists have reacted to Pope Benedict’s boneheaded quote of a 14th century characterization of Islam as violent, by threatening violence on Christians. You can’t make up stuff this good.
Murray
September 17, 2006 at 3:56 pm
18Dave it’s time for a repeat of the ‘97 season. Gators? Sure, it doesn’t matter who we beat in the final.
antiflake
September 17, 2006 at 5:00 pm
19Hedera, David,
Whether we get the right guys or not, or whether the interrogation techniques used are the best available seem to me a separate matter. In time of war, these matters are up to the security forces. As a check on incompetence or abuses, Congress has oversight powers in the matter of treatment of captives. Far from a perfect system, but in this case it strikes me as better than a Procustean application of Geneva.
antiflake
September 17, 2006 at 5:49 pm
20“But dozens of ex-detainees, government ministers, lawmakers, human rights activists, lawyers and scholars in Iraq, Afghanistan and the United States said the detention system often is unjust and hurts the war on terror by inflaming anti-Americanism in Iraq and elsewhere.”
What inflames anti-American sentiment is more likely our perceived weakness. It is al Qaeda who first said and continues to say to the Muslim world, “If you are not for us you are against us.” Forced to choose, they are not stupid; they naturally go with whoever is most fearsome to them. They see how Israel showed itself weak in the occupied territories, followed by the pitiful performance of the US in Iraq. They see how al Qaeda will show videotapes of your beheading on TV to your children. If you were looking for someone to bitch about over your problems, who would you choose?
Consider that the US needlessly incinerated hundreds of thousands of innocent German and Japanese men, women and children, although neither country attacked the US mainland as al Qaeda did, or tried to assassinate a US president as Saddam Hussein did. Yet we are not hated in Japan or Germany. This is not an argument for senseless violence, but it is food for thought.
piglet
September 17, 2006 at 6:23 pm
21Now I see. They will only love us if we bomb them to ashes. Now that’s logic.
Thanks for clearing that up.
SeattleDan
September 17, 2006 at 7:01 pm
22Nicely said, piglet.
I think what inflames them has nothing to do with perceived weakness; it has more to do with a foreign policy that basically foists a hegemonic view on the rest of the world. It is our perceived strength that inflames them. Our government runs around the world, telling others what to do, covet what they have in terms of natural resources, and generally act like bullies.
Maximum Bob
September 17, 2006 at 7:26 pm
23A few points:
1) We are not at war with Al Qaeda. Congress hasn’t declared it, and even if it did, whom would it declare it against? As far as I know, we’ve always declared war against a country or group of countries, and not against pickup teams of thugs. (I’m talking about a real declaration, not the War-on-Poverty kind of thing.) And when does a war end when fought against an enemy that will never surrender?
Unfortunately, this inapt war metaphor is killing our chances of making progress. To call our conflict with Al Qaeda a war is to elevate Al Qaeda; they’re criminals, albeit particularly bloodthirsty ones.
2) If anti-American sentiment is inflamed by an appearance of weakness, then maybe we should have thought of that before invading Iraq with far too few troops for the job, and letting the place spin out of control (remember the “democracy is messy” line?). And if torturing people is a sign of strength, then there are other countries far more powerful than we’ll ever be. I mean, God willing.
3) If you want to be completely pragmatic about it, we honor international treaties with the realization that we’ll need to continue to make treaties in the future, and won’t be able to if we keep on wiping our butts with them (a real diplomat would probably reword that). And if you want to be more idealistic, we honor international treaties because we’re not scum.
4) I think some folks want to deny due process to the detainees because they’re afraid that some terrorists will escape. That’s an inevitable part of our system: we risk letting some perpetrators go free to make it less likely that an innocent person will be punished. This is built into our country’s DNA; change it and you no longer have a democracy. This means that each of us has to assume some degree of personal risk–maybe we and our families will suffer in the next terror attack–to preserve democratic ideals. Is we mice or is we men (or women)?
Adam Felber
September 17, 2006 at 7:41 pm
24Antiflake -
Thanks for being both a contrarian AND civil. Nice to have you here. Some thoughts:
- I don’t think there is any “perceived weakness” surrounding the United States’ image. That strikes me as campaign talk - both for Republicans and for al Qaeda recruiters (both of whom profit by using that rhetoric). Otherwise, I think the rest of the world has little doubt that the US is the biggest military power in the world and one of the most likely to USE that power.
- That bit about “neither country attacked the US mainland as al Qaeda did, or tried to assassinate a US President as Saddam Hussein did…” I’m not quite sure why you bring that up. Are you insinuating that people in Japan in 1941 were thinking “What’s the big deal, we didn’t attack their MAINLAND?” Or are you suggesting that we went to war in Iraq because Saddam attempted to assassinate a US President? I don’t think you mean either. In any case, we’re not hated in Japan or Germany because they unambiguously started the war, we beat them, and we exerted great care in helping them rebuild (something we are still obligated to do in Iraq).
- Back to your earlier (and, I think stronger) point: Thought the Geneva conventions definitely had that “poor sap” of a soldier in mind, they also apply, without any qualifications, to ANY prisoner captured in a war. Poor grunt or intelligence mastermind or guerilla organizer. There were plenty of people captured in World War II AND Vietnam who - if tortured mercilessly - might have divulged information that would have saved dozens, if not hundreds, of lives.
We play by the rules for two reasons. For one, it gives us some moral high ground and differentiates us from enemies who DON’T play by the rules. For two, it protects our soldiers. It really, really does. Honestly, if a US patrol accidentally strays into Iran (it happens) and gets captured… are YOU comfortable with Iranians waterboarding and inducing hypothermia on our soldiers? I’m not.
And I don’t think instituting a special set of interrogation rules for “Really Bad Guys” is going to help either.
David
September 17, 2006 at 9:53 pm
25A gifted wit and an intelligent diplomat. No wonder there are so many Felbernauts. I am seriously indebted to Leslie for introducing me to Fanatical Apathy.
Did you ever get to return the porn flick?
Stephen
September 18, 2006 at 7:26 am
26I think Adam raises a good point. The reason that Japan and Germany are allies is that we were able to help them AFTER we beat them. You just don’t see that kind of support going to Afghanistan. or Iraq. I think the people of Islam have shown they can be committed to a cause. How much better would we be doing if we could have won their friendship instead of treating them like dirt?
Sometimes I think we should show a stronger hand also, but I would like to be sure we are showing it to the right people.
antiflake
September 18, 2006 at 12:05 pm
27Piglet wrote:
“Now I see. They will only love us if we bomb them to ashes. Now that’s logic.”
I never said they would love us, because I don’t believe they ever will. There is no reason for them to. No matter what we do or don’t do. For the militant Muslms, our mere presence, our mere existence, is an offense to Allah. Love of infidels is not in the vocabulary. When this message finally sinks in, we may start to think clearly about what we are up against.
benihana
September 18, 2006 at 12:42 pm
28Join us next congressional season as we waterboard for witches! If your not the witch I’m sure you know who is… Has congress passed the bill reviving stake burning yet? (come on, they were planning a firey death anyway, lets just give ‘em what they want!)
Dale
September 18, 2006 at 2:58 pm
29Benihana–I would have thought you would be more into steak burning.
Mieke
September 18, 2006 at 5:03 pm
30Tin Rule? How about a “Soaring Eagle Freedom Rule”? Do unto others as we would have you do unto them?
cooper
September 18, 2006 at 5:56 pm
31Mieke, ixnay the oganslays. (The Soaring Eagle Freedom Rule is just the kind of hook the repugs may want to hang the next abuse of the Constitution on - in time for the midterm elections.)
David
September 19, 2006 at 6:02 am
32The difference between the treatment of Japan and Germany post-WWII and the current treatment of Afghanistan and Iraq screams volumes, and with utterly predictable consequences.
Kelli
September 19, 2006 at 6:11 am
33Bush is a master of framing the question in order to get the “correct” response. When asked “Are you willing to hurt terrorists in order to protect American lives?” My answer is an easy “Yes.” However that question and response do not have any connection to the available options. When the phraseing is altered to match the reality “Are you willing to hurt some terrorists and some innocent people and some regular grunt soldiers in order to possibly protect American civilians, but at the same time ask our own troops to sacrifice thier right to not be hurt in return……”
That is just a terrible sound bite.
Mike Z
September 19, 2006 at 5:44 pm
34antiflake - I tend to agree with your assessment that the serious jihadis will never “come around” to being America-lovers. Their identity is based on their anti-Americanism and their violence. However, in order for those die-hards to be effective, they need a willing (or at least neutral) populace to support them (or at least not impede them). That populace is much more likely to be swayed away from anti-Americanism as long as we don’t give them every reason to hate us. So, there is a gigantic (I think absolutely critical) reason to maintain our moral standards, even in the face of a wholly immoral enemy, and that is to make the population around the jihadists less likely to hide them or otherwise support their efforts.
And if that isn’t at all convincing, then the fact that torture is widely agreed to yield (at best) unreliable information undermines any other possible justification that Cheney or anyone else may have. For example, there is good reason to believe that bad info gained via torture was used to push us into Iraq under false pretenses.
Mike Z
September 19, 2006 at 5:52 pm
35As for Bush’s request that we clarify article 3 of the geneva conventions, this is in keeping with their general legal strategies. They do what they can to adhere to the *letter* of the law, while totally ignoring the spirit of the law. That way, they can do just about anything they want and claim that it’s all legal (which is often technically true). If we just stick with the “what reasonable people would consider inhumane” kind of standard, then it is obvious that they are violating it, and they have no defense. If we clarify it, then they will find some loophole and start torturing again.
ajax
September 20, 2006 at 12:09 pm
36Mike Z - I agree that we should maintain our moral standards, but what exactly are they in some of these historically new cases? (and should my moral standards depend on the opinion of some guy in Damascus or Islamabad?)
Our moral standards, say it is permissible to kill by any nasty means necessary in some cases. In many states, it doesn’t even have to be self-defense, witness capital punishment of criminals already safely under lock and key.
Now if that is permissible, I’m not sure it is a great leap to non-lethal waterboarding or hog-tying or psychological pressurization where there is a reasonable expectation that someone picked up on the battlefield is witholding life-saving information, and he’s out of uniform with a rifle in his hand. I’m pretty sure that given the choice of being smacked around or terminated, I would choose the former, especially if I could end it by cooperating.
Whether or not to change or “clarify” the law is another question. Current law has served fairly well. In a true emergency, I’m inclined to force the self-appointed judges of necessity to violate the law if they feel so strongly about it. Then if they appear to have gone over the line and done something unnecessarily cruel, they can always be prosecuted and tried, or in the case of the President, he can at least be impeached.
The numer one purpose of the government, and therefor of the Constitution, is to defend us Americans, not everyone who comes along. If it fails to do that where it can, that’s not right.
Jim (OJNTNJ)
September 20, 2006 at 1:00 pm
37Ajax,
It would appear that you may have answered your own question. Perhaps our moral standards for dealing with these “historically new cases” should be the same as it is for the worst of the worst of our own U.S. society.
Very few would refute that Timothy McVeigh or unibomber Ted Kazinsky were/are wacked-out extemists, or that Charles Manson and Jeffrey Dahlmer were/are monstrous blights in our society, but we did follow the letter of the U.S. law in apprehending, trying, and prosecuting these criminals. And we did so without resorting to either physical or psychological torture (and yes I am aware that Dahlmer died a grisly painful death - at the hands of another criminal).
If we show that level of morallity when dealing with our own societal monsters, why would we want to use a different standard for non U.S. criminals?
We debase ourselves by using tactics that we claim to abhore when those same tactics or worse are used by others.
David
September 20, 2006 at 4:42 pm
38Thanks for the above, OJNTNJ.
Mike Z
September 20, 2006 at 4:43 pm
39Ajax - Jim already made part of my point (thanks, Jim). There is nothing about our current situation that should alter what we consider to be ethically defensible behavior.
You suggest that if capital punishment is ok, then maybe torture is also ok. I agree that it may be hard to justify one and not the other, but I actually don’t think that capital punishment is ethically jutified, and so I think it should also be banned. Isn’t America still the only fully industrialized nation that allows capital punishment? It has always struck me as deeply hypocritical when people decry such things as torture yet still maintain that the death penalty is ok.
hedera
September 26, 2006 at 9:22 pm
40I read a recent article from the L.A. Times that sheds a different light on the administration’s push to except CIA operatives, specifically, from the Geneva convention rules. The article pointed out something I knew but had forgotten: the Geneva convention protections are applied to soldiers - but not to spies. CIA operatives working overseas are considered spies, not protected by the Geneva convention, and therefore derive no benefit from the U.S.’s official adherence to the treaty.
I still don’t think we should be redefining the Geneva convention for our own private use, for all the reasons stated above. The protection for our soldiers, and the maintenance of our own moral position, is still worth doing. But it’s a little clearer why the CIA is taking the position it is.
David
September 27, 2006 at 6:10 am
41Thanks for the link, hedera.
Perhaps this is one of the problems with espionage, this notion that CIA agents aren’t also soldiers for their country. Most troubling about the history of CIA operations is that they have been conducted without any regard for basic human morality or decency, the end totally justifying the means, and the end being too often overarching US business interests.
If spies really were just spies, not also agents of cold-blooded clandestine warfare, they could actually be treated quite humanely when captured, if not simply be killed in a confrontation, just like any other soldiers in warfare.
I would also add that I think terrorists are just soldiers, too, only at times gruesomely misguided agents of death and destruction. But all war is gruesome infliction of death and destruction. I am becoming less and less enamored of the fine points we try to apply to this whole cluster of inhumane human enterprises, although I do understand that a violent aggressor must be stopped. But if the ultimate goal isn’t ending all this insane carnage, as clearly it isn’t for this administration, then we are just staggering in ever more dangerous circles.
Roadstergal
October 6, 2006 at 12:40 pm
42The reason that Japan and Germany are allies is that we were able to help them AFTER we beat them.
Yes, and the state Germany was left in after WWI is a big reason the Nazi party had the ’success’ it did.
And David, I agree - when does a soldier become a gurrellia? When does a gurrellia become a terrorist? It often feels like our goal, as a country, is “how can we be as nasty as possible to those who aren’t 100% red-blooded Americans?” rather than “how can we work our way around to living in a reasonable amount of peace with as much of the world as possible?”
(I’ve been a fan of Wait, Wait since it aired, and finally got around to checking out this blog. Velly interesting!)
Harold
October 6, 2006 at 1:01 pm
43Welcome aboard, Roadstergal!