From the gang that informed us that the
"Geneva Conventions are irrelevant" comes the latest ploy to
keep legal their strategy of torturing and degrading our
so-called enemies:
Water down the War Crimes Act.
I realize the champagne hasn't even warmed in Connecticut and across the country. But before we can rest on our progressive laurels, here's another opportunity for us to remember why we supported Ned Lamont in the first place.
The war in Iraq was a mistake to begin with, it has been and continues to be poorly executed and our continued erosion of human rights in its execution undermines our standing and moral leadership in the world.
Specifically, here's what the Administration is trying to do:
The draft U.S. amendments to the War Crimes Act would narrow the scope of potential criminal prosecutions to 10 specific categories of illegal acts against detainees during a war, including torture, murder, rape and hostage-taking.
Left off the list would be what the Geneva Conventions refer to as "outrages upon [the] personal dignity" of a prisoner and deliberately humiliating acts -- such as the forced nakedness, use of dog leashes and wearing of women's underwear seen at the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq -- that fall short of torture.
"People have gotten worried, thinking that it's quite likely they might be under a microscope," said a U.S. official. Foreigners are using accusations of unlawful U.S. behavior as a way to rein in American power, the official said, and the amendments are partly meant to fend this off.
Not so bad, eh?
Let's flash back about three and a half years ago. That's when we saw the shakey video footage of captured US soldiers in Iraq on Al Jazeera.
At the time, Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld had this to say:
Speaking on CBS, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld charged that if those seen on television were indeed coalition soldiers, "those pictures are a violation of the Geneva Conventions."
And Don Rumsfeld is not the only one who is outraged when humiliating acts occur. So is the Yugoslavian War Crimes Tribunal.
But humiliations, degrading treatment and other acts specifically deemed as "outrages" by the international tribunal prosecuting war crimes in the former Yugoslavia -- such as placing prisoners in "inappropriate conditions of confinement," forcing them to urinate or defecate in their clothes, and merely threatening prisoners with "physical, mental, or sexual violence" -- would not be among the listed U.S. crimes, officials said.
So while we're outraged when it happens to us, when we're accused of doing it to someone else, suddenly the charge is just too vague.
Degrading and humiliating treatment is just too vague a term for the likes of Alberto Gonzales, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, David Rivkin, and John C. Yoo. What's next: Cruel and unusual punishment?
And the kicker quote from Maj. Gen. Scott C. Black:
the changes can "elevate" the War Crimes Act "from an aspiration to an instrument" by defining offenses that can be prosecuted instead of endorsing "the ideals of the laws of war."
But the last time I checked, the Geneva Conventions is not American law, but international law. How will the world perceive this?
"This removal of [any] reference to humiliating and degrading treatment will be perceived by experts and probably allies as 'rewriting' " the Geneva Conventions, said retired Army Lt. Col. Geoffrey S. Corn, who was recently chief of the war law branch of the Army's Office of the Judge Advocate General. Others said the changes could affect how foreigners treat U.S. soldiers.
Corn also has this to say
Common Article 3 was, according to its written history, "left deliberately vague because efforts to define it would invariably lead to wrongdoers identifying 'exceptions,' and because the meaning was plain -- treat people like humans and not animals or objects."
So when this new War Crimes Act comes up for another vote, who do you want sitting next to Chris Dodd in the Senate chambers? Someone who thinks it's unpatriotic to criticize the President or someone who thinks it is unconscionable to undermine our pursuit of human rights-- even during wartime?
The stakes are high and getting higher.