On This Day in History
On Dec. 10, 1948, the U.N. General Assembly adopted its Universal Declaration on Human Rights. As a permanent member of the Security Council, the United States was a party to this declaration. Sadly, the current US regime seems to be intentionally ignoring that declaration and a host of other international agreements. Among other questionable practices, the US refuses to allow the International Red Cross to meet with various prisoners being held by the US all over the world. The NY Times has the details.
The United States said Friday that it would continue to deny the International Committee of the Red Cross access to "a very small, limited number" of prisoners who are held in secret around the world, saying they are terrorists being kept incommunicado for reasons of national security and are not guaranteed any rights under the Geneva Conventions.
Adam Ereli, the State Department's deputy spokesman, said the United States would not alter its position after the president of the International Red Cross said in Geneva that his organization was holding discussions to gain access to all detainees, including those held in secret locations.
Mr. Ereli said that the Geneva Conventions requiring humane treatment of prisoners of war did not apply to certain terrorism suspects seized as "unlawful enemy combatants," but that, in any case, the United States treats most of them as prisoners of war.
...Aside from those detainees, about two or three dozen terrorism suspects, including a handful of top Al Qaeda operatives, are said by current and former intelligence officials to be held in secret locations.
On Thursday in Geneva, John Bellinger, the senior legal adviser of the State Department, acknowledged that the International Red Cross does not have access to all detainees held by American forces but declined to discuss the existence of secret detention centers.
The Red Cross has recognized that some of those held by the United States are not prisoners of war, and do not have the full protection of the Geneva Conventions. But it has argued that no prisoners, not even those alleged to be terrorists, should fall into what it calls a "black hole" outside any protection under international humanitarian law. A central purpose of the Red Cross is to visit prisoners and protect their human rights. [Emphasis added]
Beatings, waterboarding, administering electric shocks: no human being should be subjected to such treatment, regardless of the alleged misdeeds and regardless of the circumstances. Hiding such treatment by hiding the locations abroad and isolating the recipients of such treatment is cowardly, at best, and immoral,at worst.
One way to exert some control over those ordering and those administering such treatment is to simply make it illegal. Ninety US Senators voted to do just that, even in the face of enormous pressure from the President (who has threatened a veto) and the Vice-President (who is lobbying for exceptions to John McCain's amendment). In an editorial, also in the NY Times, the writer gives some pragmatic reasons for standing firm on the McCain amendment, but calls for passage.
It took too long, but the Senate is finally trying to clean up this mess, voting 90 to 9 for an amendment by Senator John McCain to reimpose age-old rules of decency for the detainees in the "war on terror." The House should endorse that amendment, which is attached to the Pentagon budget bill, and send it to President Bush.
There was talk this week of Mr. Bush's backing away from his threat to veto the entire Pentagon budget if the McCain amendment is attached. We hope that's true, but this is a time for Americans' elected representatives to stand on principle. Mr. McCain should not water down his bill to satisfy the White House or fringe Republicans in the House. If Mr. Bush cannot manage to overrule his vice president and ends up vetoing the measure, it should not be hard to override such an irresponsible act. All it would take is for Congress to vote against torture.
Exactly right.
The United States said Friday that it would continue to deny the International Committee of the Red Cross access to "a very small, limited number" of prisoners who are held in secret around the world, saying they are terrorists being kept incommunicado for reasons of national security and are not guaranteed any rights under the Geneva Conventions.
Adam Ereli, the State Department's deputy spokesman, said the United States would not alter its position after the president of the International Red Cross said in Geneva that his organization was holding discussions to gain access to all detainees, including those held in secret locations.
Mr. Ereli said that the Geneva Conventions requiring humane treatment of prisoners of war did not apply to certain terrorism suspects seized as "unlawful enemy combatants," but that, in any case, the United States treats most of them as prisoners of war.
...Aside from those detainees, about two or three dozen terrorism suspects, including a handful of top Al Qaeda operatives, are said by current and former intelligence officials to be held in secret locations.
On Thursday in Geneva, John Bellinger, the senior legal adviser of the State Department, acknowledged that the International Red Cross does not have access to all detainees held by American forces but declined to discuss the existence of secret detention centers.
The Red Cross has recognized that some of those held by the United States are not prisoners of war, and do not have the full protection of the Geneva Conventions. But it has argued that no prisoners, not even those alleged to be terrorists, should fall into what it calls a "black hole" outside any protection under international humanitarian law. A central purpose of the Red Cross is to visit prisoners and protect their human rights. [Emphasis added]
Beatings, waterboarding, administering electric shocks: no human being should be subjected to such treatment, regardless of the alleged misdeeds and regardless of the circumstances. Hiding such treatment by hiding the locations abroad and isolating the recipients of such treatment is cowardly, at best, and immoral,at worst.
One way to exert some control over those ordering and those administering such treatment is to simply make it illegal. Ninety US Senators voted to do just that, even in the face of enormous pressure from the President (who has threatened a veto) and the Vice-President (who is lobbying for exceptions to John McCain's amendment). In an editorial, also in the NY Times, the writer gives some pragmatic reasons for standing firm on the McCain amendment, but calls for passage.
It took too long, but the Senate is finally trying to clean up this mess, voting 90 to 9 for an amendment by Senator John McCain to reimpose age-old rules of decency for the detainees in the "war on terror." The House should endorse that amendment, which is attached to the Pentagon budget bill, and send it to President Bush.
There was talk this week of Mr. Bush's backing away from his threat to veto the entire Pentagon budget if the McCain amendment is attached. We hope that's true, but this is a time for Americans' elected representatives to stand on principle. Mr. McCain should not water down his bill to satisfy the White House or fringe Republicans in the House. If Mr. Bush cannot manage to overrule his vice president and ends up vetoing the measure, it should not be hard to override such an irresponsible act. All it would take is for Congress to vote against torture.
Exactly right.
posted by Diane at 4:43 AM
1 Comments:
thisn heer commet just orbbed up from the other won again. even weerder
you do perty well on the blob stats side of life. how you doin it without any commets ever. hmmmm... anither lawterd screwin the pubic.
Post a Comment
<< Home