jawa.mee.nu

September 21, 2006

Carrots, Sticks, and a Terrorist Entitlement Program

I do not support torturing any prisoners in the custody of the U.S. But I also do not support giving those who have violated the Geneva Conventions the protections of those Conventions. To do so undermines the rule of law and, in fact, works against our interest in seeing that those Conventions are followed.

My latest piece at Townhall, Carrots and Sticks: The Geneva Conventions are not an Entitlement:

The idea behind the Conventions is that if you agree to abide by their rules, your captured combatants will be treated humanely. Human treatment is an inducement to follow the rules of war.
That is called a carrot.
But there is also a negative inducement. If you do not agree to abide by their rules, your captured combatants will not be treated humanely. At least, there is no legal guarantee that they will. The prospect that you will have no legal protections against pain and suffering if you get captured is an inducement to follow the rules of war.
That is called a stick.....
What the Democrats and some Republicans are offering to terrorists is no inducement at all to follow the rules of war.
They are, in fact, creating an entitlement for terrorists.

Read the rest. You'll be glad you did.

UPDATE: Does torture sometimes work? Apparently so.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:48 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Wow cool icon!

Posted by: Howie at September 21, 2006 10:33 AM (D3+20)

2 I think the peole behind this push believe if we allow for the protections under the Geneva Conventions, it will protect our own soldiers from harm. They obviously have forgotten the britality these animals mete out to every American they get their hands on.

Posted by: SeeMonk at September 21, 2006 11:04 AM (2HM/d)

3 No, Monk, they don't believe that at all; they're just trying to appease our enemies in the hope that they will remember it when our enemies become our masters. Our politicians are gutless cowards who have accepted as inevitable the enemy's victory, and the lefturds are all in the enemy's camp anyway, and so that leaves We the People to fend for ourselves. When the jihad is being waged in the streets of America, the lefturds will be right behind them, giving them aid and comfort, and the government will be doing everything it can to stop us from fighting back. Our own government is in a state of treason, and the sooner it falls, the better.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 21, 2006 11:13 AM (v3I+x)

4 As one who favors Geneva protections for those in custody, for me it's about the standards that we hold ourselves to. In other words, it's not about them, it's about us.

We've had a tradition in this country that dates to Washington as Commander-in-Chief of the Continential Army of treating prisoners humanely (even while the British and Hessians killed American soldiers who had been wounded or captured). I see nothing wrong in living up to that standard. And I see many evils in ignoring that standard.

The tribunals are a bit more tricky, obviously I wouldn't argue that they should get all the protections provided by the UCMJ or the Constitution - but at the same time, hearsay and testimony gained by coercion should not be admissible.

Posted by: KG at September 21, 2006 11:29 AM (AC0TE)

5 They are not going to give information willingly KG. Even the mildest methods of interrogation are coercive to some degree. I don't believe we should be pulling finger nails out but I don't see any crime in communal toilets and denying them a Koran. I can still pray without a bible. Most of the evil they do is based on what it written in the Koran to start with. You have to put pressure on them to talk. Too many lives are at stake to kid glove them to death.

Posted by: SeeMonk at September 21, 2006 11:36 AM (7teJ9)

6 SeeMonk - the definition of coercion under the law relies a great deal on the "reasonable person" standard. Basically, if a reasonable person would find the actions reasonable or not outside the bounds of decency (or whatever the exact phrase is), then it would be permissible. You're right when talking about the Koran and communal toliets. My concern is more about practices like waterboarding, cold rooming, and some of the more henious stuff that has been talked about.

Posted by: KG at September 21, 2006 11:57 AM (AC0TE)

I like McCain and all. I understand and respect his position. However, the Geneva Convention didn't do much to stop him from being mistreated now did it?

Posted by: Howie at September 21, 2006 01:17 PM (YdcZ0)

I have a very good friend who served 6 years with McCain in the Hanoi Hilton, and the Geneva Convention didn't mean a damn thing to these Third World thugs in Vietnam, nor do they mean a thing to the present day thugs of Islam. The only thing any of these people understand is brute force, applied in a manner likely to discourage their bad behavior. KG, I promise, again, I promise you that our soldiers in WWII did not adhere to the Geneva Convention, nor did anyone else. When you are fighting for your life, the hell with conventions, and that is what war is all about. These conventions were written in another time, when Western powers fought each other. No Eastern power has ever honored these conventions, and they will not start now, so ditch the damn conventions before more of our men get killed.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 21, 2006 04:22 PM (rUyw4)

9 First of all, Rusty, very nice work. There's very little in the way of coherent thought on that side of the issue and I have looked. Most of it boils down to ticking bomb scenarios. Your thinking on this was something that made sense to me. I'm still generally against torturing prisoners but, that brings me to my other thought.

I'm with SeeMonk on this one. I don't think we should be inflicting real physical harm but, some of this stuff people scream "TORTURE!!" on is just ridiculous.

Naked pyramids? Funny as hell.
Sleep deprivation? A perfectly harmless method of weakening someone's mental acuity.
Red Hot Chili Peppers? I'd likely want to kill myself after a while but, they're not technically harmful.
Taking away to koran? Don't they memorize the koran in the madrassas anyway?

Seriously, I could go on but if it's not real physical pain it's not torture.

Posted by: Rich at September 21, 2006 07:43 PM (89Rw1)

10 I don't like Mcain. He comes on as a man without conviction. For years his only goal in life has been polical. Why is he a hero anyway? I say the good pilots who avoided being shot down and continued to carry the fight to the enemy are the heros. He's a hero because he wasn't any good at evasive maneuvers? As far as him being tortured. Did he have any choice? He sure as hell didn't volunteer.

Posted by: greyrooster at September 22, 2006 06:47 AM (m9HAJ)

11 greyrooster, yeah, I've seen a lot of the right dislikes McCain. I also agree he's made political comprimises over the last six years that were enormously distasteful to people like me that would have voted for him in 2000.

Personally, I believe the reason for this is he was essentially told "support Bush or else" by the GOP after his loss in the 2000 primaries. His support for Bush is what has made him look like a purely political creature. I believe though it was either that or end his politcal career. I do hope he runs in 2008 and clears up all of this ambiguity. I know in 2000 he struck me as far more sincere and qualified than Gov. Bush.

As for this "is he a hero?" shit... It's funny how you guys are all "support the troops" until they get home and disagree with you. I support the troops and the veterans. I would never question any of their heroics defending this country. What the GOP did to McCain, Cleland and Kerry (and others but these are the high profile ones) in the course of elections is vile and you seem to be continuing that crap.

You can't just "support the troops" as long as the troops are just some ephemeral concept. You have to support them individually as well. Questioning their military record for political purposes is hardly "support," wouldn't you agree?

Posted by: Rich at September 22, 2006 03:47 PM (89Rw1)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

37kb generated in CPU 0.0108, elapsed 0.0254 seconds.
34 queries taking 0.0187 seconds, 166 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

September 21, 2006

Recent Comments