Torture and the Tenth Amendment

[ddeclue]

President Bush has made the specious argument that we need to
"refine" or "clarify" the language of the
Geneva Convention, Common Article III with respect to what is
or is not torture because "there is confusion among
interrogators" as to what is allowed and not allowed.

This President asserts that phrases such as "outrages
upon personal dignity" are unclear.

I say that this is a "specious" argument - which
Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines as: "having a
deceptive attraction or allure" or "having a false
look of truth or genuineness" - because there is, in
fact, no real ambiguity.

The language of Common Article III is clear enough - to any
human being with a conscience - we all know the Golden Rule: 
"Treat others as you would like to be treated."

If any interrogator feels any "confusion" about what
is legal and what is not - if they even have any doubts - then
they should already know that they shouldn't be doing it.  

The President, as he picks nits, wants us to forget that the
authors of Common Article III INTENTIONALLY wrote it to
describe EFFECTS - not METHODS - so as to take into account
man's infinite creativity in finding new ways to inflict
cruelty and pain on his fellow man.

These authors knew that if they simply created a fixed
"laundry list" of what was acceptable and what was
not that someone somewhere in the future would come up with a
new way to torture people that wasn't on that list.

In short, they created a "catch-all" protection to
prevent legalistic loopholes for would-be war criminals who
would torture prisoners in the future.

The Founding Fathers, likewise, understood as much when they
wrote our Constitution.   That's why they included the 10th
Amendment in our Bill of Rights.   If you've never read it -
please take a moment and do it now - and appreciate anew the
genius of our Founders.

The 10th Amendment in reserving "unenumerated
powers" to the "people or States respectively"
ensures that the powers of the Federal government are indeed
"few and defined" as Founder and future President
James Madison wrote in Federalist #45 while the powers of the
citizen are on the other hand NOT limited simply to those
enumerated in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

The Founders understood that if they limited the rights of
citizens simply to a laundry list of those specifically
enumerated in the Constitution that a creative future tyrant
might find new ways to suppress "We the People". 

For instance one could argue that arbitrary and unappealable
"no fly lists" infringe upon an implicit right of
the citizen to freedom of movement about the country and
amount to a defacto if not dejure exile against dissidents.

The Founders understood that if "We the People" were
to remain free that they had to fix the fundamental
relationship between the Government and the People explicitly
in the Constitution - that the Government has limited powers
loaned to it through the informed consent of the governed and
that all power actually derives from the People not the
Government.

As Lincoln so eloquently explained it in the Gettysberg
Address, ours is literally "a government of the people,
by the people, and for the people."

When it comes to Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention,
what the President really wants to do then isn't to
"clear up confusion" as he claims.  As I have said,
common sense and the Golden Rule are more than enough of a
guide for anyone with a conscience.

Rather, he wants to redefine "torture" in the
narrowest possible and least protective terms by defining a
limited set of methods that can be called "torture"
rather than considering the effect of any particular method
upon a human being's personal dignity.

He wants to limit the rights of these detainees - who
regardless of what they are accused of, are still human beings
with human rights - so that his minions can find creative new
ways to torture people that won't be on the "magic
list."

In short he wants to remove the important catch-all nature of
the protection offered by Common Article III so that he and
Attorney General Gonzalez can resume playing legalistic games
to work around the rights of helpless prisoners in their
custody.

What we need right now is an far-sighted American President,
not an near-sighted American Inquisitor 

We need someone who truly understands what Lincoln meant when
he said that "this struggle is not altogether for
today--it is for a vast future also."

Consider that one day in the not too distant future, another
American naval aviator will find himself shot down and
captured in a foreign land in an another undeclared war. 
Imagine the scene as the foreign interrogator begins his
"interrogation" with: "Don't worry Lieutenant
Rogers, your own government doesn't consider this
torture..."

Tell Mr. Bush NO.

Respectfully,

Doug De Clue
Orlando, FL

[grizmaster]

1. "Effects not methods" sums it up nicely

great letter

[annabanana]

3. Absolutely on the nose

K&R

[Supersedeas]

6. Yep, I second that and recommend this.

[ddeclue]

9. I just tried to post this same essay at freerepublic and they pulled it.

It didn't last 10 seconds! The pulled it and blocked me from posting.

Ironically, although I'm a liberal Dem, I argued this essay from a very conservative point of view that any libertarian would have been proud of. I did so intentionally. I framed it in their own logic and their own rhetoric to point out the absurdity of Bush's logic on this issue.

More proof that Republicans don't believe in logic, debate, or freedom of speech any more.

Doug D.

[ddeclue]

29. Hopefully it will get published in the paper...

We'll see...

[displacedtexan]

2. Wow!

You have got to start a DU Journal!

[ddeclue]

5. I haven't written as much on DU in the last year because I blog at..

www.brainshrub.com as a guestblogger (www.brainshrub.com/blog/121)

(If you liked this one then read what I wrote last November: www.brainshrub.com/american-inquisition)

Lately though the brainshrub blog admin has been out of touch so I've come back to DU for the time being..

Thanks for your compliments...

Doug De Clue

[displacedtexan]

10. If you start a DU journal, your great posts will be preserved.

Give it a try.

[ddeclue]

12. I preserve it myself... ;-)

When I write stuff like this, it is initially "off the cuff" but I go over it enough times to make it worth saving it while I write it.

I had been getting posted at brainshrub.com as guest blogger of the day on a regular enough basis that that was where I was "preserving" stuff for posterity but lately their admin has been out of touch so it's back to DU for the time being.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[ddeclue]

13. Link problem at brainshrub.com

For some reason you can no longer go directly to the article but have to go to my blog and go to the very earliest post to read what I wrote about torture last November.

Sorry..

[savemefromdumbya]

4. After World war 2 the world was expected to adhere to Geneva convention

Bush shouldn't be messing with this he is no better than a Nazi

[Recursion]

7. 9th amendment is even more to the point, IMO

These authors knew that if they simply created a fixed
"laundry list" of what was acceptable and what was
not that someone somewhere in the future would come up with a
new way to torture people that wasn't on that list.

I believe the 9th amendment is even more apropos:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I believe this is the shortest amendment to the Constitution, but it's also one of the most important, and frankly the most commonly ignored. How many times have you heard someone say "where in the Constitution is the right to privacy?" That's the wrong question; the 9th Amendment (the only part of the Constitution I know of that provides rules of construction) says we need to assume a right is inherent.

[ddeclue]

11. Actually both apply to this situation..

I was thinking both 9 and 10 but only wrote 10. I should have mentioned the 9th as well.

Good catch.

Thanks,

Doug D.

[Imagevision]

27. what was legal and what not in Abu Gharib prison torture?

[ddeclue]

28. Nothing that we saw on the news was legal...

We don't know everything that happened there but plenty of illegal acts (against UCMJ and Geneva Convention) clearly did happen there.

Unfortunately because the Bush administration hides everything behind a cloak of secrecy, we get to see very little of what they actually do - this way they get to protect themselves from accountability for their actions in most cases (except where someone blows the whistle on them.)


Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[young_at_heart]

8. Congress, especially Repub members, need to confront him

They have allowed these people to act like dictators for quite a long time!

[Jack Rabbit]

14. Common Article III

From the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions:

Art 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

Third Geneva Convention
Fourth Geneva Convention

[indepat]

15. Torture of American captives is a price all who support are willing to pay

Come to think of it, bet none of their progeny will ever be put in harm's way.

[tblue]

16. Yes! Oh this is really good, Doug.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Article 3 was written that way intentionally. People, societies, technology, standards, cultures, mores change and vary.

But Bush, who can only see black and white, says he doesn't know what outrages to human dignity means. Know why?

Because he has no dignity.

[Marnieworld]

17. welcome to DU!

:hi:

[ddeclue]

18. well..really it's welcome "back" to DU...

I posted here a lot in the past (1000+ posts) but have been away awhile posting at brainshrub.com and working campaigns in FL.

Thanks though ;-)

Doug D.

[Marnieworld]

20. I was talking to the other poster with 21 posts

But Welcome Back to you as well! ;-)

Actually, I might as well tell that I loved your post. Not only well-written but it's nice to refute them with founding fathers' quotes too. They aren't exactly "partisan" ya know?

[ddeclue]

21. My favorite tactic is to come at a Conservative from the right..

I can out argue them on their own terms using their own language and that really destroys them because they have all been programmed by the Limbaughs and Hannity's of the world to expect "stereotypical" liberal arguments and given talking points to combat the liberal arguments.

Showing the own internal inconsistency of their wing-nut arguments gives them "no where to run and no where to hide". They have no plan to defend against it and it shows them to be the hypocrites they actually are.

Keep the faith...
Doug D.
Orlando FL

[tblue]

23. Tell me more!

I like the sound of that. I wish I could talk to righties but they give me a headache. Tell me, because sooner or later, you have to face one of them.

[ddeclue]

24. Well...let's see...

Don't get hung up on their nut-job authors - particularly the recent wing-nut people like Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, etc. These people are idiots and only useful for citing how ignorant and inconsistent they the right really is.

What's really important is to show the internal inconsistencies in their argument so as to brand them hypocrites:

1) First, learn all you can about history, particularly American history. Righties love to cite the "Disneyfied" version of American history but they are usually wrong on the actual facts. Prove them wrong the facts and cite authoritative sources.

2) Then, learn as much as you can about the Revolution, the Declaration, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the Bible (yes I said the Bible), Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and American government in general. It's fun to use the Federalist Papers, T.R. and Lincoln against wing-nuts and its fairly easy to do given that they typically just pay lip service to what either the Federalists or Lincoln actually had to say - especially since Bush took office.

Finding daylight between Bush and Hamilton or Madison is pretty darned easy given that Bush is doing his level best to set himself up as King George IV and they were doing their best to separate themselves from George III. Just take a look at the specific complaints that Jefferson had against King George in the Declaration and you'd think he was talking about today, not 1776.

Nothing drives a fundamentalist religious rightie more nuts than quoting the Bible back to them because they don't really believe in secular arguments, even those founded in traditional "strict constructionist" Founding Fathers (i.e. George Will-esque) viewpoints.

These people, just like the Taliban or Al Qaeda does, view their allegiance to their extremist religious views as far more important than their allegiance to this country and their whole world view is justified in their own interpretation of the scriptures. They don't care about empirical fact or secular logic. The best way to stop these people is to point out the flaws in their arguments using the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John against them.

Fortunately, finding daylight between Bush & Co and Jesus is tremendously easy given that Jesus was about helping the poor and the outcast and the foreigner and about turning the other cheek and non-violence - which is 180 degrees opposite from the Wing-Nuts.

It's easy for instance to show them that Jesus opposed school prayer (for instance see Matthew 6:1-6:8), was himself an "illegal immigrant" in Egypt (see Matthew 2:13-2:15), and as was a victim himself of torture, "outrages to personal dignity" and capital punishment:

Matthew 27:26-31:

Then he released Barabbas to them, but after he had Jesus scourged, he handed him over to be crucified.

Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus inside the praetorium and gathered the whole cohort around him.

They stripped off his clothes and threw a scarlet military cloak about him.

Weaving a crown out of thorns, they placed it on his head, and a reed in his right hand. And kneeling before him, they mocked him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!"

They spat upon him and took the reed and kept striking him on the head.

And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the cloak, dressed him in his own clothes, and led him off to crucify him.

Doesn't anyone else see the obvious similarities between this passage and the goings on at Abu Gharab?

To paraphrase a popular bumper sticker: "Who WOULD Jesus torture" anyways?


Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[ddeclue]

22. Oh and P.S. I love quoting Lincoln to Republicans too ;-)

That's always a lot of fun..

Hee hee..

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[ddeclue]

19. More like he has no decency...

"At long last, sir, have you no decency?" - Joseph Welch to Joe McCarthy in the Army McCarthy hearings..

Where's our Joseph Welch today?

Where's our Edward R. Murrow?

Doug D.

[Hosnon]

25. Too bad the Xth Amendment is pretty much ignored by the courts. nt

[ddeclue]

26. Perhaps but..

I think it is funny to slap them around with their own rhetoric and it may even bite them in the butt since they loaded up the Supreme Court with strict constructionists under recent Republica Presidents.

Indeed, it already HAS bit them in the but in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that has set this whole attempt to rewrite the torture laws in motion again.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL