Balkinization  

Tuesday, June 21, 2005

Our President: Stupid or Evil?

JB

President Bush to reporters yesterday:
Q Mr. President, many in Europe are worrying that with the fight against terrorism the commitment of the United States to human rights is not as big as it used to be -- that is not only to do with Guantanamo, but also with the secret prisons where the CIA holds terror suspects. My question is, what will happen to these people who are held in these secret prisons by the CIA? Will they ever see a judge? Or is your thinking that with some terror suspects, the rule of law should not apply or does not have to have applied.

PRESIDENT BUSH: First of all, I appreciate that question, and I understand we -- those of us who espouse freedom have an obligation, and those who espouse human rights have an obligation to live that to those -- live up to those words. And I believe we are, in Guantanamo. I mean, after all, there's 24 hour inspections by the International Red Cross. You're welcome to go down yourself -- maybe you have -- and taking a look at the conditions. I urge members of our press corps to go down to Guantanamo and see how they're treated and to see -- and to see -- and to look at the facts. That's all I ask people to do. There have been, I think, about 800 or so that have been detained there. These are people picked up off the battlefield in Afghanistan. They weren't wearing uniforms, they weren't state sponsored, but they were there to kill.

And so the fundamental question facing our government was, what do you do with these people? And so we said that they don't apply under the Geneva Convention, but they'll be treated in accord with the Geneva Convention.

And so I would urge you to go down and take a look at Guantanamo. About 200 or so have been released back to their countries. There needs to be a way forward on the other 500 that are there. We're now waiting for a federal court to decide whether or not they can be tried in a military court, where they'll have rights, of course, or in the civilian courts. We're just waiting for our judicial process to move -- to move the process along.

Make no mistake, however, that many of those folks being detained -- in humane conditions, I might add -- are dangerous people. Some have been released to their previous countries, and they got out and they went on to the battlefield again. And I have an obligation, as do all of us who are holding office, to protect our people. That's a solemn obligation we all have. And I believe we're meeting that obligation in a humane way.

As well, as we've got some in custody -- Khalid Shaykh Muhammad is a classic example, the mastermind of the September the 11th attack that killed over 3,000 of our citizens. And he is being detained because we think he could possibly give us information that might not only protect us, but protect citizens in Europe. And at some point in time, he'll be dealt with, but right now, we think it's best that he be -- he be kept in custody.

We want to learn as much as we can in this new kind of war about the intention, and about the methods, and about how these people operate. And they're dangerous, and they're still around, and they'll kill in a moment's notice.

In the long run, the best way to protect ourselves is to spread freedom and human rights and democracy. And -- but if you've got questions about Guantanamo, I seriously suggest you go down there and take a look. And -- seriously, take an objective look as to how these folks are treated, and what has happened to them in the past, and when the courts make the decision they make, we'll act accordingly.


As a matter of fact, reporters-- and many others too-- have taken a look at what has been going on at Guantanamo, aided by information from the FBI. Here, for example, is Anthony Lewis in today's New York Times. (Lewis, by the way, recapitulates many of the legal points made by our own Marty Lederman on this blog):
Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation observed what went on in Guantanamo. One reported on July 29, 2004: "On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they had urinated or defecated on themselves and had been left there for 18, 24 hours or more."

Time magazine published an extended article last week on an official log of interrogations of one Guant?namo detainee over 50 days from November 2002 to January 2003. The detainee was Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi who is suspected of being the planned 20th hijacker on Sept. 11, 2001, but who was unable to enter the United States.

Mr. Kahtani was interrogated for as long as 20 hours at a stretch, according to the detailed log. At one point he was put on an intravenous drip and given 3 1/2 bags of fluid. When he asked to urinate, guards told him that he must first answer questions. He answered them. The interrogator, not satisfied with the answers, told him to urinate in his pants, which he did. Thirty minutes later, the log noted, Mr. Kahtani was "beginning to understand the futility of his situation."

F.B.I. agents, reporting earlier on the treatment of Mr. Kahtani, said a dog was used "in an aggressive manner to intimidate" him. At one point, according to the log, Mr. Kahtani's interrogator told him that he needed to learn, like a dog, to show respect: "Began teaching detainee lessons such as stay, come and bark to elevate his social status to that of a dog. Detainee became very agitated."

At a minimum, the treatment of Mr. Kahtani was an exercise in degradation and humiliation. Such treatment is forbidden by three sources of law that the United States respected for decades - until the administration of George W. Bush.

The Geneva Conventions, which protect people captured in conflict, prohibit "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment." The scope of that clause's legal obligation has been debated, but previous American governments abided by it. President Bush decided that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban members who are detained at Guant?namo.

The United Nations Convention Against Torture, also ratified by the United States, requires signatories to "prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction ... cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment." The Bush administration declared that this provision did not apply to the treatment of non-Americans held outside the United States.

Finally, there is the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It makes cruelty, oppression or "maltreatment" of prisoners a crime. Armed services lawyers worried that some methods of interrogation might violate the Uniform Code and federal criminal statutes, exposing interrogators to prosecution. A Pentagon memorandum obtained by ABC News said a meeting of top military lawyers on March 8, 2003, concluded that "we need a presidential letter" approving controversial methods, to give interrogators immunity.

The idea that a president can legalize the unlawful evidently came from a series of memorandums written by Justice Department officials. They argued, among other things, that President Bush's authority as commander in chief to set interrogation methods could trump treaties and federal law.

Although President Bush decided to deny detainees at Guant?namo the protection of the Geneva Conventions, he did order that they must be treated "humanely." The Pentagon, responding to the Time magazine article on the treatment of Mr. Kahtani, said, "The Department of Defense remains committed to the unequivocal standard of humane treatment for all detainees, and Kahtani's interrogation plan was guided by that strict standard."

In the view of the administration, then, it is "humane" to give a detainee 3 1/2 bags of I.V. fluid and then make him urinate on himself, force him to bark like a dog, or chain him to the floor for 18 hours.

No one can seriously doubt now that cruelties and indignities have been inflicted on prisoners at Guantánamo. Nor is there any doubt that worse has happened elsewhere - prisoners beaten to death by American soldiers, untold others held in secret locations by the Central Intelligence Agency, others rendered to be tortured by governments such as Uzbekistan's.


And yet the President keeps insisting that we are treating our prisoners consistent with democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

Two questions come to mind. First, does the President actually believe what he is saying? If so, then he is being willfully blind to the evidence. The second is whether he indeed does know what is going on but believes that he can continue with the status quo and that the American public and the rest of the world won't pay attention or hold him accountable. If so, then his repeated announcements that nothing wrong is happening at Guantanamo are not only cynical, but deeply immoral.

Which word, then, best describes our President, the leader of the free world, the self-proclaimed champion of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law? Stupid or evil?


Comments:

I want to emphasize one point of agreement between myself and mjh21. We should have a full and fair discussion about whether the means of prisoner interrogation currently being used at Gitmo and other secret bases are worth the ends they seek to achieve. The problem is that the Administration repeatedly denies that it is doing anything out of the ordinary. As the quoted remarks from President Bush show, the Administration continues to insist that only humane treatment is occuring at Guantanamo. Therefore the Administration never has to defend any balance of benefits and harms; nor does it have to acknowledge arguments that it may be acting in violation of treaty obligations or the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Nor does it have to justify its policies on the grounds that any violations of or deviations from existing treaty obligations and the UCMJ are justified by the President's Commander in Chief power.

By proceding in this manner, as Marty Lederman has pointed out, the Adminstration has avoided saying what exactly the President has authorized, and whether it is worth the costs. A serious discussion in a democratic society like ours cannot begin until the President levels with the American people.
 

I'm with Iron Teakettle and mjh21. I think we should torture, mistreat and abuse prisoners using methods laid out in voluminous regulations and procedures until the world, seeing how wholesome and virtuous we are, adopts these same ideals. When that happens, Man! won't life be fine.

Cheers!
 

I stood at 82nd street at Madison Avenue on September 11 and watched the smoke rising from the World Trade Center, 6 miles away. The President is doing his job, which is protecting us. The evil ones are the ones who hijacked planes and flew them into buildings full of innocent workers.
 

i would like to think that the president is neither stupid nor evil. i do believe that he is completely incapable of admitting that he ever made a mistake, or that anyone who has ever worked in his administration has. i believe that he is a stubborn person, who makes up his mind that he is going to do something, and then plows straight ahead no matter what, even if that means perpetuating "facts" that were long ago debunked. if this makes him stupid or evil, so be it.

i do believe he is doing his job, as he himself defines it. he clearly does not allow, or is not interested in having anyone else define for him what his job is. along these lines, he is clearly not interested in listening to advice or receiving any kind of input into how to do any aspect of his job from anyone who is not within his inner circle. if this makes him stupid or evil, once again, so be it.

he clearly has made up his mind as to what is right or wrong, and pursues his vision of what is right regardless of the consequences. in doing so, he is clearly intolerant of dissent, and has surrounded himself with people who will only follow this vision. those who disagree clearly have no place in this administration.

it is not my place to say if he is stupid or evil. i will leave that to others. that having been said, the perpetuation of "facts" long ago proven false in the pursuit of an ill conceived war with disastrous results is no honor at any level. even honorable men are capable of dishonorable deeds.

along the lines of the last thought. stormville should know that conservatives were not the only ones in new york city on september 11. conservatives are not the only ones who seek justice for the deeds perpetrated upon americans that day. this having been said, it has long ago been proven that there was no link between the present events in iraq and the events in new york city on september 11. continued efforts by some, including members of the administration, to foster this myth serve no legitimate purpose.
 

Well, Anthony Lewis is either stupid, evil, or merely misinformed. That article strongly implies that the IV was given to the prisoner in order to make him have to urinate, and then he was deprived the privilege. It's not really so.

The prisoner was on a hunger strike, and had severe dehydration as a result. They were forced to give him IV (against his will) in order to prevent him from dying of dehydration. (And no doubt his death in US custody would have also been seen as a terrible incident.) Anthony Lewis's argument certainly makes the facts sound different from what they are. (Of course, he is only a columnist.)
 

The worst experiences make the best stories.
Agen Judi Online Terpercaya
 

Post a Comment

Older Posts
Newer Posts
Home