Conventional Wisdom From the Washington Post
The Washington Post continued its series of editorials examining the US policy on detention of 'enemy combatants' at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. I commented on the first Sunday and the second yesterday. The third editorial appeared in this morning's edition.
IN THE DAYS and weeks after Sept. 11, 2001, senior Bush administration officials decided that harsh interrogation methods were necessary to prevent devastating attacks on the country -- and that such methods could be carefully administered and limited to the most urgent cases. This thinking proved disastrously flawed. Once the administration lifted the strict regulations that long had governed interrogations of foreign detainees, abusive practices spread quickly across the government. Confusion over rules led to the torture not just of senior al-Qaeda leaders but also of common detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq. The damage done to U.S. honor and prestige around the world, and to America's ability to mobilize support for the fight against Islamic extremism, far outweighed any intelligence gathered.
...Congress last year passed the McCain amendment, which prohibits "cruel, inhuman, or degrading" treatment of all prisoners in U.S. custody. But it has become increasingly clear that the administration has not accepted that ban as the last word. It still has not renounced the right to subject some detainees to practices such as "waterboarding," or simulated drowning, even though they violate the law. It has yet to adopt clear standards governing the interrogation and treatment of foreign prisoners, or return to full compliance with such treaties as the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture. Until this situation changes, there will be more of the lawlessness and simple confusion that have led to hundreds of cases of abuse, and dozens of homicides, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere.
The administration is seeking to evade the McCain ban in more than one way. The law required that the Army's standard interrogation manual, overridden in 2002, once again govern all questioning of prisoners held in Defense Department facilities. But the Pentagon has prepared a new manual; Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld have pushed for it to include a classified annex in which some harsh techniques are again authorized for use against prisoners deemed "enemy combatants."
...Once abuse is entirely banned, there is no reason for the United States not to return to full observance of the Geneva Conventions, and there are many benefits in doing so. Following the Geneva Conventions does not necessarily mean granting prisoner-of-war status, and the many privileges that come with it, to all detainees; al-Qaeda fighters and other terrorists might legally be excluded from POW status following a tribunal hearing. But returning to Geneva could improve the chances that its provisions against inhumane treatment will be respected by other countries, including those that capture American servicemen.
...All of this the United States should in any case want to do, in its own interest. It should establish one set of rules for questioning all prisoners. Those rules should conform with international treaties and the U.S. Constitution, so that inhumane treatment is at all times forbidden. And the rules should be public, so that the world can see that the United States has returned to its fundamental values. [Emphasis added]
I have to admit that WaPo has impressed me so far in this series, especially since this newspaper, considered one of the premier papers in the country, has long justified the current administration's behavior in many appalling editorials and columns. At the same time, however, the editorialist seems to be working under several assumptions that I find questionable.
The first I mentioned yesterday: WaPo seems to think that this Congress will enact legislation which will actually put a limit on the unitary executive. Little from this GOP led Congress gives me any hope in that respect.
The second is that the Emperor will accede to such limitations. While today's editorial does obliquely address the Emperor's signing statements and their impact in the section quoted above, it does not make clear that such behavior by the executive is a clearly unconstitutional usurpation of power from the legislative branch of government.
The third is perhaps the most troubling of all and was noted by Nora in a comment to yesterday's posting (scroll down to the comment at the end of "Shining Some Light..."): the editorialist believes that some detainees, those considered active and dangerous terrorists, are not entitled to the full protection of US and International law. If we are indeed to return to our "fundamental values," then all prisoners (or, to use the intentionally obfuscating imperial euphemism, "detainees") are entitled to the protection of law, not just some.
On balance, however, I am pleased that the Washington Post is at least looking at what I consider to be a source of national shame.
IN THE DAYS and weeks after Sept. 11, 2001, senior Bush administration officials decided that harsh interrogation methods were necessary to prevent devastating attacks on the country -- and that such methods could be carefully administered and limited to the most urgent cases. This thinking proved disastrously flawed. Once the administration lifted the strict regulations that long had governed interrogations of foreign detainees, abusive practices spread quickly across the government. Confusion over rules led to the torture not just of senior al-Qaeda leaders but also of common detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq. The damage done to U.S. honor and prestige around the world, and to America's ability to mobilize support for the fight against Islamic extremism, far outweighed any intelligence gathered.
...Congress last year passed the McCain amendment, which prohibits "cruel, inhuman, or degrading" treatment of all prisoners in U.S. custody. But it has become increasingly clear that the administration has not accepted that ban as the last word. It still has not renounced the right to subject some detainees to practices such as "waterboarding," or simulated drowning, even though they violate the law. It has yet to adopt clear standards governing the interrogation and treatment of foreign prisoners, or return to full compliance with such treaties as the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture. Until this situation changes, there will be more of the lawlessness and simple confusion that have led to hundreds of cases of abuse, and dozens of homicides, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere.
The administration is seeking to evade the McCain ban in more than one way. The law required that the Army's standard interrogation manual, overridden in 2002, once again govern all questioning of prisoners held in Defense Department facilities. But the Pentagon has prepared a new manual; Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld have pushed for it to include a classified annex in which some harsh techniques are again authorized for use against prisoners deemed "enemy combatants."
...Once abuse is entirely banned, there is no reason for the United States not to return to full observance of the Geneva Conventions, and there are many benefits in doing so. Following the Geneva Conventions does not necessarily mean granting prisoner-of-war status, and the many privileges that come with it, to all detainees; al-Qaeda fighters and other terrorists might legally be excluded from POW status following a tribunal hearing. But returning to Geneva could improve the chances that its provisions against inhumane treatment will be respected by other countries, including those that capture American servicemen.
...All of this the United States should in any case want to do, in its own interest. It should establish one set of rules for questioning all prisoners. Those rules should conform with international treaties and the U.S. Constitution, so that inhumane treatment is at all times forbidden. And the rules should be public, so that the world can see that the United States has returned to its fundamental values. [Emphasis added]
I have to admit that WaPo has impressed me so far in this series, especially since this newspaper, considered one of the premier papers in the country, has long justified the current administration's behavior in many appalling editorials and columns. At the same time, however, the editorialist seems to be working under several assumptions that I find questionable.
The first I mentioned yesterday: WaPo seems to think that this Congress will enact legislation which will actually put a limit on the unitary executive. Little from this GOP led Congress gives me any hope in that respect.
The second is that the Emperor will accede to such limitations. While today's editorial does obliquely address the Emperor's signing statements and their impact in the section quoted above, it does not make clear that such behavior by the executive is a clearly unconstitutional usurpation of power from the legislative branch of government.
The third is perhaps the most troubling of all and was noted by Nora in a comment to yesterday's posting (scroll down to the comment at the end of "Shining Some Light..."): the editorialist believes that some detainees, those considered active and dangerous terrorists, are not entitled to the full protection of US and International law. If we are indeed to return to our "fundamental values," then all prisoners (or, to use the intentionally obfuscating imperial euphemism, "detainees") are entitled to the protection of law, not just some.
On balance, however, I am pleased that the Washington Post is at least looking at what I consider to be a source of national shame.
posted by Diane at 4:07 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home