Torture in the Bush Gulag: Is it really ending?

"I wouldn't join the International Criminal Court. It's a body based in The Hague where unaccountable judges and prosecutors can pull our troops or diplomats up for trial.

"And I wouldn't join it. And I understand that in certain capitals around the world that that wasn't a popular move. But it's the right move not to join a foreign court that could -- where our people could be prosecuted." - George W. Bush 09/30/04

"Men without conscience are capable of any cruelty the human mind can imagine." - Dick Cheney 01/26/05

One might think that after Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, even the Bush administration could read the handwriting on the wall.  And that's what you might think reading the first several paragraphs of this story: U.S. Troops Will Benefit From Clarity, Experts Say by Thomas Ricks Washington Post 07/12/06.

But then down starting on paragraph 12, we get this:

The Bush administration says that having to observe the Geneva Conventions in handling detainees is no problem, because the spirit of the conventions' protections has been observed all along. "It is not really a reversal of policy," White House spokesman Tony Snow said yesterday.

The Geneva Conventions require humane treatment, and "Defense Department policy has always been humane treatment," said Army Lt. Col. Mark Ballesteros, a military spokesman.

Indeed, in the short term, there probably will be few changes at the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for suspected members of al-Qaeda and their Taliban allies, predicted a senior military lawyer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. That is primarily because some practices that clearly would violate the conventions' ban on "humiliating and degrading treatment," such as putting underwear on detainees' heads, were abandoned long ago, mainly because they were found to be ineffective, the lawyer said.

But, the lawyer added, the lack of definition in the conventions could make the new policy a rich area of litigation for defense lawyers, especially in a cross-cultural environment.  For example, a Muslim prisoner might argue that in his culture being interrogated by a foreign female is an outrage on his personal dignity, and therefore inhumane.  (my emphasis)

In other words, we can't have the slightest confidence that the Bush administration intends to start obeying American and international law when it comes to criminal, sadistic torture.

The Post reporter just typed up the talking points:  oh, we're just talking about putting underwear on prisoners heads, or using females interrogators, and now we're gonna face all this "politcally correct" criticism from lawyers who hate America and love The Terrorists.

For a look at the real-world problems of resorting to torture, see Losing the Moral Compass: Torture and Guerre Revolutionnaire in the Algerian War by Lou Dimarco Parameters (US Army War College) Summer 2006

"The President is always right." - Steve Bradbury, Acting Deputy Attorney General, 07/11/06