[lit-ideas] Re: Relapsed Already
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:19:49 -0700
Yes, but there were two parts to my note. The one as you say indicated that
I didn't trust the NYT. The second asked for more evidence than that vague
NYT allusion. The other articles put it into a context I could recognize.
Bush made the allusion to the latitude previous presidents had. He was
referring to the latitude given the CIA, but he wasn't specific.
The Geneva Convention applies to nations at war. The term is "high
contracting parties." Terrorist organizations are not "high contracting
parties" and do not adhere to the Geneva Convention. It is absurd to
assume that a group that targets civilians ought to be given the benefits of
a nation that adheres to the Geneva Convention. I'm not sure Bush thinks
the Geneva convention applies to Terrorists. He may but I didn't get that
impression from his speech.
Here is Article Three
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/genevacon/blart-3.htm The
vague part reads: "c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular,
humiliating and degrading treatment" It is vague to the extent that no CIA
interrogator could engage in virtually any sort of interrogation and be sure
he wasn't violating it.
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Robert Paul
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 3:54 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Relapsed Already
Lawrence Helm wrote:
> I can only bark up the tree you guys point me toward.
You began your post by saying you didn't trust the New York Times. One would
have thought, surely, that your demand for evidence, sources, etc., followed
from that lack of trust, i.e., of the NYT in particular.
> This sounds like
> some of the stuff that is being addressed in the new legislation Bush
talked
> about in his last couple of speeches. . . You all heard those speeches,
> didn't you?
What's the referent of 'this' here?
> The President believed he had authority to determine the
> level of treatment used in questioning terrorist suspects. Previous
> presidents had that sort of latitude?
They did? Do you haved an instance in which a former president claimed that
article 3 of the Geneva Convention (1949) could be interpreted any way he
pleased _or_ that the article was so vague it couldn't be interpreted?
(There
have been over 50 years of case law in which this article has been
interpreted
and its meaning clarified.) But, show me an example.
> but a judge not using US precedent but
> instead the Geneva Convention said he didn't have that authority but
instead
> a vague Geneva Convention requirement applied.
'Vague' is your (and the Administration's) word. Bush isn't interested in a
disinterested clarification of a treaty; he wants the treaty interpreted his
own way. This is as about as clear as things get. This article is no more
vague
or contentious than any other statute. Even Somali warlords were able to
understand it and treat a US serviceman in light of it.
The judge also said that the Administration's interpretation went against
the
Uniform Code of Military Justice.
> So Bush is doing two things.
> He is appealing the Judges decision and he is attempting to get
legislation
> through congress defining the latitude the CIA has in interrogating
> terrorist suspects.
Previously, the US was bound by the treaties it was party to and by its own
laws. What a concept.
Robert Paul
Reed College
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
