Wednesday, February 02, 2005
More Torture Logic
In another convolution of language and specious logic, Robert J. Delahunty and John C. Yoo (one of the authors of the Justice Department’s torture memos) say, in a LA Times opinion piece, that The Geneva Conventions are not obsolete and are obsolete in the same breath.
The Geneva Convention is not obsolete— nor, despite his critics, did Gonzales say it was. It protects innocent civilians by restricting the use of violence to combatants, and in turn give soldiers protections for obeying the rules of war. Although enemy combatants may have killed soldiers or destroyed property, they are not treated as accused criminals. Instead, nations may detain POWs until the end of hostilities to prevent them from returning to combat.
(snip)
A treaty like the Geneva Convention makes perfect sense when it binds genuine nations that can reciprocate humane treatment of prisoners. Its existence and its benefits even argue for the kind of nation-building that uses U.S. troops and other kinds of pressures in places like Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq; more nation-states make all of us safer. But the Geneva Convention makes little sense when applied to a terrorist group or a pseudo-state. If we must fight these kinds of enemies, we must create a new set of rules.
In that important respect, the Geneva Convention will become increasingly obsolete. Rather than attempting — as Gonzales' shrill critics do — to deny that reality, we should be seeking to address it.
"...we must create a new set of rules?" "….we should be seeking to address it?"
How?-—with another anal light stick?
The Geneva Convention is not obsolete— nor, despite his critics, did Gonzales say it was. It protects innocent civilians by restricting the use of violence to combatants, and in turn give soldiers protections for obeying the rules of war. Although enemy combatants may have killed soldiers or destroyed property, they are not treated as accused criminals. Instead, nations may detain POWs until the end of hostilities to prevent them from returning to combat.
(snip)
A treaty like the Geneva Convention makes perfect sense when it binds genuine nations that can reciprocate humane treatment of prisoners. Its existence and its benefits even argue for the kind of nation-building that uses U.S. troops and other kinds of pressures in places like Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq; more nation-states make all of us safer. But the Geneva Convention makes little sense when applied to a terrorist group or a pseudo-state. If we must fight these kinds of enemies, we must create a new set of rules.
In that important respect, the Geneva Convention will become increasingly obsolete. Rather than attempting — as Gonzales' shrill critics do — to deny that reality, we should be seeking to address it.
"...we must create a new set of rules?" "….we should be seeking to address it?"
How?-—with another anal light stick?
