Rivers of Exile

What is unclear about “cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment”? September 15, 2006

Posted by Delilah in : General, World, US Congress , trackback

That folks are even having to discuss torture as if it were a reasonable topic for the US of all places has been nauseating enough. That Republican Senators are having to spell it out for everyone shows the kind of morals to which some policymakers - and the media that enable them - have descended. Say the Senators - according to WaPo:

[…] the United States should not try to limit its obligations under the Geneva Conventions. Instead, they want CIA officers to abide by the common understanding of the treaty’s meaning, including a ban on ‘outrages upon personal dignity.’

Meanwhile, the President insists that he needs the meaning of “cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment” clarified for him:

“So the question I ask about any piece of legislation is, will the program provide legal clarity so that our professionals will feel comfortable about going forward with the program? That’s what I’m going to ask. And I will resist any bill that does not enable this program to go forward with legal clarity. . . .

“If there’s not clarity, if there’s ambiguity, if there’s any doubt in our professionals’ minds that they can conduct their operations in a legal way, with support of the Congress, the program won’t go forward and the American people will be in danger.

This is messed-up, really. What’s not clear about “cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment”? Let’s see: Abu Ghraib, ok? That’s all those things. If I remember correctly, the low-level low lives suckers who got caught on pics are in jail but - although some of them have argued the “we were told to do it by our bosses” - I haven’t seen any investigation of that. What if they were right? What if, as many suspect by now, this was policy? Seems clear to me that was “cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment” - no question about it.

Either we stand for all the stuff we claim to stand for or we don’t.