President Obama set his moral compass strong and true through the issuance of executive orders to close Guantanamo Bay Prison and other secret CIA prisons throughout the world. Additionally, prisoners in Guantanamo and other such prisons must now be treated according to the tenets of the Geneva Convention. Through this sweeping and immediate decision, the Obama presidency announces to Americans, and to the world, that the United States will no longer compromise its essential values and principles in the treatment of the accused.
There are some who believe torture is justified in this "war on terror"; that it might be used to destroy one life, but preserve many. In reality, this belief is misguided.
Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. (Army Field Manual 34-52)
Several weeks ago, I heard an interview on the radio with one of the chief Army negotiators for the Iraq War. He spoke eloquently about his interrogation techniques, which primarily consisted of forming relationships with the prisoners and gaining their trust. He was sometimes able to obtain accurate information through a combination of "psychological ploys" and "verbal trickery" (also describe in 34-52), but he mainly emphasized the creation of a series of agreements made with the prisoners. Through gaining their trust, he was able to interview a chain of prisoners, eventually leading him to those who were the most culpable.
We now have a moral, ethical leader of our country. The closing of Guantanamo is just the beginning of ending the ugly chapter of disregard for human rights introduced by the Bush administration in the name of "national security." I eagerly await the next coordinates on this new moral journey.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The debate over the closing of Gitmo and continued use of torture are two separate issues and should be treated as such.
ReplyDeleteWhether or not waterboarding helps extract information that can save lives is debatable. If playing Barney tapes instead makes prisoners spill their guts (it has) it's fine with me. Bring on the creepy big purple guy's "I love you..." Is even one reader thinking that listening to Barney songs isn't torture?
Are they even being tortured at Gitmo? From what I've read they have their quiet prayer times and are eating better than they ever had before.
You mentioned that the prisoners have rights under The Geneva Conventions. This abomination by the Supreme Court gave rights to fighters who don't wear uniforms and are not affiliated with a particular country. These are people who were specifically excluded by The Conventions. In other words, until last year wearing street clothes while fighting a war so you can blend into civilian populations meant that you forfeited any rights, human or otherwise. The Conventions wanted to discourage such behavior but apparently the Supreme Court doesn't.
Until the Supreme Court stuck it's fat nose into another issue regarding war, POW's could be kept indefinitely without trial until hostilities ceased. Now they'll clog our courts with you and me footing the bill for both prosecution and defense.
It's not moral or ethical of our President to bring these prisoners to mainland prisons nor to release them to the battlefield where they can kill more of our soldiers. Gitmo is the perfect place for them. They should stay put.
How do we know that these suspected "enemy combatants" are, indeed, guilty? Is it right to hold someone against their will without presenting them proof, without a trial of some sort?
ReplyDeleteOnce again, I reiterate that information obtained under torture has proven to be unreliable. Plenty of research studies on that if you're interested.
Yes, torture has occured at Guantanamo. Lots of proof on that as well...including this report from the Physicians for Human Rights.
http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/report-2005-may.html
Additionally, if we are to shine as a beacon of democracy for the rest of the world, we had better "walk our talk" when it comes to the Constitution. Denying prisoners due process by placing them in "convenient" locations such as Guantanamo, Cuba in order to create our a parallel, make-it-up-as-you-go-along set of rules, goes against the foundational values of the Constitution. I have been struck by the irony of Guantanamo's location on Cuba for the past few years now...anyone else?
ReplyDeleteThese people at Gitmo do not need to be found guilty. They are enemy combatants plucked from a battlefield and reviewed by the military on a case-by-case basis. The information on the reasons for capture and other military tactics should not be in a courtroom. The logistics of flying soldiers back and forth for testimony is an impossible logistical nightmare. Much evidence would be inadmissable such as reading of rights or impossible to bring to court anyway like bombs and bomb fragments.
ReplyDeleteThere have been precedents. During WWII The Supreme Court found that German POW's had no access to our courts. The justices at the time had sense to know that the President is Commander in Chief and is in charge of military operations. It's not making it up as we go along.
Enemy combatants should sit at Gitmo until hostilities end. If that's 100 years from now it's the price they pay for fighting in civilian clothing.