General Petraeus Acknowledges Breaching Geneva Conventions and Abjures Torture
« on: 2009-06-01 15:16:11 »
Petraeus Says U.S. Violated Geneva Conventions - What Will Cheney and Rush Say?
Source: Huffington Post Authors: Jon Soltz Dated: 2009-05-31
Co-Founder of VoteVets.org, served as a Captain in Operation Iraqi Freedom
A couple of days ago, I chronicled the quickening departure of some big military names from the Republican party, those concerned about the party moving even farther to the right a number of issues, including torture. What struck me at the time is that General David Petraeus came out against torture and for closing Guantanamo.
I was stunned, however, when he admitted today that the United States has violated the Geneva Conventions. Without saying specifically how we did (though it doesn't take much imagination to figure it out), Petraeus said on FOX News:
Question: So is sending this signal that we're not going to use these kind of techniques [ Hermit : torture ] anymore, what kind of impact does this have on people who do us harm in the field that you operate in?
Gen. Petraeus: Well, actually what I would ask is, "Does that not take away from our enemies a tool which again have beaten us around the head and shoulders in the court of public opinion?" When we have taken steps that have violated the Geneva Conventions we rightly have been criticized, so as we move forward I think it's important to again live our values, to live the agreements that we have made in the international justice arena and to practice those. [ Hermit : At least for those who considered General Betray-us as a reliable source, this ought to end the discussion ]
This fits in very well with an explosive new video put out by VoteVets.org today, in which Jay Bagwell, who worked in counterintelligence in Afghanistan not only argues against torture, but says that detainees were brought in who had pamphlets portraying Guantanamo in them.
One has to wonder what Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, and their crowd will say to this? In the past, General Petraeus could do and say no wrong. Now, he is not only saying torture does not work, but is saying that what the right fringe believes are only "enhanced techniques" violated international law.
As Jay Bagwell in our video says so well, "The Unites States can't be a beacon of freedom and human rights and the value of law while we ignore international law."
Now, we can say without a doubt that General David Petraeus agrees.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Re:General Petraeus Acknowledges Breaching Geneva Conventions and Abjures Tortur
« Reply #1 on: 2009-06-01 18:54:42 »
[Blunderov] I suppose Cheney and Rush would be forced to revert to a previous wingnut defence; that the Geneva Conventions are quaint and outdated, that WMD in the hands of terrorists were not part of the frame of reference at the time the Nuremberg principles were elucidated. Much is made, as we have seen ad nauseum, of the massive loss of life that might occur in this scenario in order to assert that because such catastrophic consequences were previously unimaginable, it therefore justifies the breaking of the standing law.
I think the argument is specious. It is quite possible to imagine sets of circumstance that would certainly have been within the frame of reference of the framers of the Nuremberg principles that are even more grave than the loss of life involved with putative rogue WMDs would be. For instance, it might occur that an particular country began to lose a war with persistently frightful loss of life and a rising threat of eventual complete subjugation due to the actions of, say, a well concealed mole.
ISTM that these consequences could be seen as an (at least) equally catastrophic outcome to the putative "new WMD threat" outcome. Knowing these things as they must have, the framers still did not see fit to make any exception to the rule on torture. So, not only does the defence of necessity still fail (it is explicitly ruled out anyway), but the "new necessity"defense (so to speak) is without substance. (IMO)
Author
Logged
