A rchive Date
[ 21-09-2006 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ U.S ]
|
[http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Worthington_Peter/2006/09/21/1872147.html
Dispute over treatment of prisoners
By PETER WORTHINGTON
Thu, September 21, 2006
On the surface, it seems a ludicrous dispute, made more so by the apparent inability of either side to compromise.
That said, undoubtedly a compromise will be reached between U.S. President George Bush and Senator John McCain over how suspected terrorists should be treated, and how articles of the Geneva Convention should be interpreted. The dispute simmers on the issue of torture - is it ever justifiable, or is it acceptable if critical information can save lives, and perhaps the country?
The controversy escalated when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that al-Qaida suspects imprisoned at Guantanamo were entitled to protections under the Geneva Convention, unless Congress ruled otherwise.
President Bush wants Congress to "clarify" (and permit) what can be done; McCain leads a group that opposes any change to Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. Among other things, Article 3, prohibits: "Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment."
Just what are these? "Spell out what these are," Bush asks of Congress.
"They're quite clear as they are," replies McCain and his Senate supporters.
One of the persuasive arguments of the "don't tamper" gang is that if every country interprets the Convention according to whim and fancy, it endangers American soldiers who become prisoners. This strikes a chord among Democrats, who don't want to appear soft on terrorists, yet want to be seen supporting the troops.
There are a couple of flaws in this argument.
First, the Geneva Convention is a contract among signing states, that if they go to war, they are obliged to treat one another's prisoners decently. For countries that choose not to sign, the Convention doesn't apply.
Article 4 of the Convention states that members of militias or volunteers in a war must meet four criteria to qualify for Geneva protections. They must: 1. have a chain of command; 2. wear a uniform or display a distinctive symbol; 3. carry weapons openly; 4. fight in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
The Taliban and al-Qaida seem to fail on all four counts - but the Supreme Court, with no consultations with other signatory states, ruled otherwise. Most damning for the McCain group is the idea that by "clarifying" the Convention, other states may also do the same, thereby further endangering the lives of Americans taken prisoner.
This begs the question, which of the main countries that endorse the Geneva Convention, is America likely to go to war against? Britain? France? Germany? Canada?
In the last 50 years, virtually ever regime America has fought, has ignored or violated the terms of the Convention's treatment of prisoners, even though some have signed (but not ratified) the agreement. Americans get zilch Geneva protection from the Taliban, Hezbollah, Iraqi insurgents, Somalis, North Koreans, or any enemies they've fought.
More difficult is defining what is "humiliating" and/or "degrading." With terrorists, Geneva rules don't, and shouldn't, apply. If information is vital, there are abundant ways to get it without extracting fingernails or administering electric shocks to genitals. Sleep deprivation, drugs, harassment, deceit, are all degrading, but none are torture - and on occasion can and do save lives.
Sen. McCain was a prisoner of the North Vietnamese and behaved heroically, although by his own admission could not withstand constant torture. The Geneva Convention didn't help him against an enemy who didn't honour it. That alone should persuade Congress to "clarify" terms of the Convention, as the President wishes.
Have a letter for the editor? E-mail it to editor@tor.sunpub.com
Copyright © 2006, Canoe Inc. All rights reserved
 World Fact Book (CIA) ]
|