War Crimes and the White House
The Dishonor in a Tortured New ‘Interpretation’ of the Geneva Conventions
By P.X. Kelley and Robert F. Turner
Thursday, July 26, 2007; Page A21
One of us was appointed commandant of the Marine Corps by President Ronald Reagan; the other served as a lawyer in the Reagan White House and has vigorously defended the constitutionality of warrantless National Security Agency wiretaps, presidential signing statements and many other controversial aspects of the war on terrorism. But we cannot in good conscience defend a decision that we believe has compromised our national honor and that may well promote the commission of war crimes by Americans and place at risk the welfare of captured American military forces for generations to come.
———————————————
The good news is that the tide is turning. While the president still has Dave Burris and Mike Castle in his corner – he has lost guys like this. The men and women who once believed that the United States embodied values that were worth fighting for.
Click here to read the whole thing.
I am waiting with baited breath for the conservative viewpoint here. Will these guys be called traitors, have they turned soft when the going got tough, do they want to “cut-and-run”, are they giving “comfort to the enemy”.
C’mon Chris, c’mon Rube or Hube or whatever… you’re the kings of the conservative cliché. Give me something good. The work week is wearing on and I desperately need a laugh.
Wait all you want. I am not going to call them traitors or “cut-and-runners” because the point of their letter is not “surrender and go home” like so many on this board believe in.
Rather, they seek to modify our behavior with respect to the Geneva Convention.
I understand their point of view and can certainly respect them for the service they have provided to the country. I don’t agree necessarily with their point for a couple of reasons:
1. They say we did not find it necessary to violate moral principals to defeat Japan and Germany in World War II. Fact is we did. From the “relocation camps”, to black ops, and our assistance of the French Resistance, to the nuking of two Japanese cities. A strong argument could be made (and has been on this board) that we were not morally correct. But we used the end to justify the means. Rarely the wisest approach, but sometimes necessary. As I believe it is in this case because…
2. The world is quite different now than it was when all these “conventions” were layed out. It used to take the power of entire armies to wreak havoc on a nation, and they usually had to go through another army to do it. That is no longer the case. 19 suicidal guys can terminate the lives of nearly 3,000 Americans in a single morning. And it could have easily been more. Even one guy (or girl anymore) with a suitcase nuke could make 9/11 look like a minor incident. We cannot AFFORD to miss ANY piece of information available to us. Also, back then, most of your ground soldiers or guerillas had no way of knowing the grander plans. They had a simple job to do and that is all they knew. There was little you could learn from then. In this Internet age, even the terrorist stepping on a bus with a bomb strapped to him either knows or has heard rumblings of other, bigger operations. It is possible that even from a terrorist lackey very important information can be gleaned.
3. We canot expect our enemy to uphold the conventions because they never signed them. They don’t exist as a nationalistic entity. When you play by the rules your opponent will not play by, it makes it nearly impossible, and most assuredly COSTLY, to win.
The writers are correct, the rules are the rules. But unfortunately, the game has changed drastically, and the stakes are high. And just like in WWII, the end will justify the means.
Chris,
I dig the well thought out response. And I appreciate it. I agree with point #1. (In particular the Japanese American internment camps.) I wonder though how much credence you’d place on these views if they didn’t come from Reaganites, military men, etc. Nevertheless, I agree.
And by the way, no one is advocating “surrender and go home” – just go home. You can’t just pop around fighting wars on false pretenses then make up rationale after the fact like revisionist history. Al Qaeda didn’t exist in Iraq until the US invaded. You can’t then use AQ as rationale for the invasion. It doesn’t follow. If we leave we’re not surrendering. There’s no one to surrender to. But I digress, my apologies.
The only thing I’ll mention is that on points #2 and #3 you (pardon the pun) miss the point. The fact that the world “changed” or that we can’t necessarily expect our enemies to reciprocate is irrelevant. A great deal has changes since the constitution was signed 220 odd years ago, but a fundamental tenet is just than – fundamental. It doesn’t change because time passes or the enemy is different.
It is liberty or death, always. As far as I’m concerned, we should not be in the business hedging our bets and pushing the envelope a bit for the elusion of safety. Perhaps it is idealist, but I’d prefer to risk terrorist attacks than tacitly support what might be torture – even the perception of torture.
Bottom line – we CAN afford to miss a piece of information – IF we have to shit on our values to get it. I actually feel some sympathy for you on this one. You seem so scared.
This is why I’ve always love the NH motto – “LIVE FREE OR DIE”.
True story:
Robert Kaplan, embedded journalist: “The PUC’s (person under confinement) were brought into a detention facility behind the fort (Gardez). They were low priority detainees. After being interrogated they either had to be released or sent up to Bagram for a higher level of interrogation. In Bagram they could only be held for a short time as well, before being sent back home, or on to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. You could wake them every few hours, disorient them, but that was about it. Well documented cases of prisoner abuse not withstanding, prisoners KNEW that in a vast majority of cases, the Americans would not mistreat them nearly to the degree as had the Soviets, or other Afghans. Usually an Afghan willing to be slightly uncomfortable for a few days could stiff the American interrogators with impunity. Everyone complained about this…………Nevertheless one did give up some information and a new raid was planned.
The New Raid:
comments from Sgt. First Class Matt Costen, Austin, Texas. “See those PUC’s? They are probably innocent Just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The real object of the mission is to treat them respectably, so that after they are released they’ll tell their families how different the Americans are from the Russians. They know we have to detain them. It is how we treat them that counts.” The operation turned up only a few grenades, det cords, and AK-47’s. But one of the PUC’s turned out to be a Taliban general who had fought against the Americans in Operation Anaconda in 2001. The other detainees were released immediately. “The Russians would have shot him,” Costen said.
Despite press releases to the contrary, in the field the policy of restraint is still in effect. Americans are different, even if their leaders fall morally flat, it is left up to the individual to make those split decisions that determine the ethics of a nation.
Hard evidence is that despite allegations of torture, non-torture has put us on the right track.
Kaplan again. “Passing through Gardez we were mobbed by cheering kids– a good sign. Two years on, the Americans were still welcome in Afghanistan. “Thank you,” they kept saying in heavily accented English.
This is the evidence: feel free to make your own conclusions.
Very interesting. Thanks.
I read this last night on the train. It’s from this month’s GQ. Great essay on the military lawyers “defending” the Gitmo detainees.
This is scary scary stuff. If other countries did this we’d shit our pants.
http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_5782&pageNum=1
These articles and story were great reading this morning, thanks for these!
It is gratifying to read about Americans who continue maintain a very high bar for honor and justice — the “Americans are different” factor — in spite of an atmosphere that invites us to succumb to our fears. I wish these kinds of stories got greater visibility, if only to remind folks that people admire about us is this fundamental commitment to honor and justice (even tho it make take us awhile to get to that), and that Americans leading by their fears are in no position to lead at all.