It won't go away

i've been pounding away on the prisoner torture issue (see here, here, and here...) bob herbert at the nyt has been doing the same (here and here )... the question is called again today in a washington post editorial, appropriately titled

Impunity

A trail of documents showed that abusive interrogation techniques, such as the use of dogs and painful shackling, had been approved by senior military commanders and the secretary of defense. Even more extreme practices, such as simulated drowning and the withholding of pain medication, were authorized for the CIA at White House meetings presided over by President Bush's counsel.

but no amount of pounding is enough, not while it's still being swept under the rug, not while lying (yes, lying, although the post chickens out and says "misled") under oath without consequence is acceptable...

Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, then top commander in Iraq, signed an order on Sept. 14, 2003, authorizing a number of interrogation methods that violated the Geneva Conventions, which legally applied in Iraq. These included the use of guard dogs to "exploit Arab fear of dogs," a practice documented in the Abu Ghraib photos. Gen. Sanchez subsequently 'misled' Congress, testifying under oath last May 19 that "I have never approved the use of any of those methods" appearing over his signature. [bold and quotes mine]

while i agree that blame lies with senior military officers who must answer for what they wrongly did or didn't do, the real accountability is at the top - with the ones who removed the boundaries and behavioral guideposts that allowed this to happen...

a point that has often been overlooked in the discussion of the prisoner abuse issue is that the boundaries provided by geneva had been in place for a long time... they had been tested, taught and understood... they had been thoroughly integrated into military training and were part and parcel of every military person's repertoire... then, suddenly, they were gone, to be replaced by...? by what...? by this... (see here for complete transcripts of the interrogation techniques approved by general sanchez...)

U. Environmental Manipulation: Allowing the environment to create moderate discomfort (e.g. adjusting temperatures or introducing an unpleasant smell). Conditions may not be such that they injure the detainee. Detainee is accompanied by interrogator at all times. [Caution: Based on court cases in other countries, some nations may view application of this technique in certain circumstances to be inhumane. Consideration of these views should be given prior to use of this technique.]

now, put yourself in the place of a low-ranking enlisted man or woman... THIS is your guidance... you are charged with the implementation of this technique and you have now been informed that "some nations may view application of this technique in 'certain circumstances' [quotes are mine] to be inhumane..." so now you know that what you are being told to do, "some" may consider inhumane... or this...

B. Incentive/Removal of Incentive: Providing a reward or removing a privilege above and beyond those that are required by the Geneva Convention from detainees. [Caution: Other nations that believe detainees are entitled to EPW protections may consider that provision and retention of religious items (e.g. the Koran) are protected under international law (see Geneva III, Article 34).]

THIS is your guidance... you are charged with the implementation of this technique and you have been informed that "other nations..may consider that provision and retention of religious items..are protected..." so now you know that, if you decide to take the koran from a detainee, "other nations" who "believe" the right to have the koran is protected "may" disapprove... but here's the clincher...

I. Pride and Ego Down: Attacking or insulting the ego of a detainee not beyond the limits that would apply to an EPW. [Caution: Article 17 of Geneva III provides "Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind." Other nations that believe detainees are entitled to EPW protections may consider this technique inconsistent with the provisions of Geneva.]

clear message: the united states rejects geneva protections for detainees, the protections provided in geneva are focused on preventing inhumane treatment of prisoners and, finally, you are being told to engage in treatment that that falls outside of geneva...

you have your orders... now what are you going to do...?

and we now know all too well what the answer to that question was - and still is...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet