The two major books reviewed (by Andrew Sullivan) are the official report into the Abu Ghraib atrocities and a more comprehensive investigation of the same atrocities by the (great) journalist Mark Danner (titled Torture and Truth).

Both Sullivan and Robert Kaplan, who reviews two other books about interrogation and torture, are openly sympathetic to the War on Terror and the war on Iraq. Kaplan also claims flatly that "there is no use saying torture never works" without supporting that claim (he waves vaguely at the French in Algeria, which makes him even harder to take seriously), and is of less interest to me here, since he is more obviously parti pris.

Sullivan, to his credit, does not shrink from reporting at least some of the worst. And it is at least as bad as we already knew, utterly gut-wrenching, sickening, add your own epithets at will, there's nothing we could say that would match the horror, just nothing.

I made the mistake of reading that review last night before I went to bed. I'm working very hard, still, on non-violent responses. There are no words for what has been done, just none. And then there's the horror of knowing that it is still going on.

Anyway, all that is by way of introduction.

Sullivan implies, at several points, that the only problem with torturing people is that innocent people are being tortured. *cough*

But the further implication of what he is saying about the sloppiness of American sweeps and arrests is that, once it can be determined that those arrested actually are the enemy, then the Geneva Conventions do not apply, and torture is ok.

Now, I realize that there are specific situations in which the conventions do not apply. It is not a crime, eg, I believe, to execute a spy, caught on your territory out of uniform?

But can someone tell me whether the authors of the conventions ever expected that ruling someone outside of certain specific protections equated to authorizing torture?

Do you see the problem I am trying to get my head around?

Do the conventions outlaw torture altogether? Execution, I can understand. Torture, never.

It seems to me that Amnesty International leaves a similar gap when it says, on the one hand, that it will only campaign for those who have been involved in non-violent resistance, and yet at the same time opposes all torture.

Am I wrong in seeing a hole here?

Yet Sullivan writes on blithely as though, if some group is not "party" to the conventions, then all constraints are off.

quote:

---

if some group is not "party" to the conventions, then all constraints are off

---

That was the tack that Germany took to russian prisoners in WWII (russia had never signed it) and Japan took to everyone.

quote:

---

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

---

So this would mean that a terrorist, guerilla, etc would not be part of this and could be subject to torture right? But not a civilian who is not taking part in hostilities or a soldier or militia that was captured or wounded and then capture or that surrendered. (another article defines what a soldier is and this would not include a terrorist or resistance person)

but then further down it states under Article 5

quote:

---

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

---

Article 4 of this states

quote:

---

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it.

---

Then article 5 states

quote:

---

Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

---

And also

quote:

---

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

---

Which would to my mind, allow torture and stuff BUT the last paragraph eliminates that loophole

quote:

---

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

---

So, from what I have seen. If you have signed it, you are bound by it and protected by it but even if you are not protected by it or fall into a loophole, you should still be treated humanely by it as if you were a legitimate prisoner of war with the possible exception of being excuted as a spy or sabouteur.

Can it mean anything at all? Could the authors have meant, Hey! Go ahead and flay them alive?

Geneva Convention on POWs

Yeah Skdadl it does contradict itself a bit but it pretty much says when in doubt protect them and treat them decently and if they arnt covered, do it anyway until someone tells you otherwise. And that someone is not really defined but other needs for resolution are mentioned as being done for you but another signatory not involved in the conflict.

However, you might be interested in what I did find:

Torture and Gonzales: An Exchange

I hadn't seen that exchange yet, Michelle, so thanks. Very valuable link.

The trouble with the Times is the same as the trouble with the Grope, or most of the other MSM daily papers: they think that they have to be "balanced," so although they will ask great people to review many things, they also feel compelled to drag in "contrasting views," however discredited those views may be.

The NY Review does not have that problem. They range from liberal to much more left, but they publish only what they want to publish and advance, what they can believe in, or at least support.

quote:

---

So this would mean that a terrorist, guerilla, etc would not be part of this and could be subject to torture right?

---

Actually, not at all. They would only be legal game for violence and tortute WHILE they were at large, and actively participating in terrorist activities or guerilla warfare.

quote:

---

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely

---

It is not part of the Geneva Conventions. Nonetheless, it was signed by the US. Furthermore, Congress passed a statute which makes the Convention part of US law.

It says:

quote:

---

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

---

The Convention also says:

quote:

---

Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.
2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.

---

This Convention is not about prisoners of war, or what state the victims belong to. It makes torture illegal, and a grave crime, as well. NO ONE may be tortured.

Even if the US had not signed the Convention, the prohibition is now part of fundamental international law, or ius cogens.

As the House of Lords said in the case of Bartle v. Pinochet:

quote:

---

Because of the importance of the values it protects, [the prohibition of torture] has evolved into a peremptory norm or jus cogens, that is, a norm that enjoys a higher rank in the international hierarchy than treaty law and even 'ordinary' customary rules. The most conspicuous consequence of this higher rank is that the principle at issue cannot be derogated from by states through international treaties or local or special customs or even general customary rules not endowed with the same normative force. . . . Clearly, the jus cogens nature of the prohibition against torture articulates the notion that the prohibition has now become one of the most fundamental standards of the international community. Furthermore, this prohibition is designed to produce a deterrent effect, in that it signals to all members of the international community and the individuals over whom they wield authority that the prohibition of torture is an absolute value from which nobody must deviate."

---

quote:

---

the prohibition of torture is an absolute value from which nobody must deviate.

---

Thank you, jeff house.

I wanted to know at least that we had affirmed it in theory.

I'm now even more disturbed, though, at the NY Times, that they would run two reviews, featured so prominently, in which the absolute prohibition against torture was glossed over -- in which, indeed, one author appears to be implying that there are no rules at all covering certain kinds of combatants. Sullivan is actively encouraging his readers to believe that under certain circumstances, the Geneva conventions magically "lift" -- meaning that all restraints are off, everything is permitted.

quote:

---

If you define torture and then what you are doing isnt torture by your definition then you ar enot contravening the convention

---

That is a different point from the claim that torture may not be illegal because of some loophole in the Convention.

I have read the two legal opinions presented to President Bush, the ones which attempt to redefine torture by claiming that the pain endured is not something minor, but has to be similar to that suffered by the removal of an organ.

No court anywhere has ever upheld such a standard.
There have been some cases where mistreatment such as persistent slapping in the face, playing of loud music and such were held not to be torture, and probably wrongly so.

But a standard such as the one in the American memoranda would allow the pulling of fingernails with a pliers, the slicing off of the earlobes, the enactment of false executions, Abu Ghraib, etc.

quote:

---

No one will let them get away with claiming those things are not torture.

---

jeff house, what do you mean, "no one"? They are getting away with it. Here. There. Everywhere.

I am trusting that the historians will not let them get away with it for too long. Not sure, at the moment, what "too long" might mean.

Och, but it destroyed me to read those reviews.

Imagine how it must feel, if you are a formerly moderately healthy person, to be realizing, blow by blow by intrusion and invasion, that your body is being destroyed, that you are being ruined, that what was, five minutes ago, is gone from you now forever.

When doctors go to war

[ 26 January 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]