Anti-torture law? What anti-torture law?

Monday, June 05, 2006 at 05:48 PM

Typical headline for the 21st century, from the Jurist web site at the U of Pittsburgh: Geneva references omitted from revised Army interrogation manual: report

That's right folks, just because the congress enacted a law against using torture in interrogation, just because the U.S. used to be a major proponent of the Geneva Convention, doesn't mean that our barely elected rabble in the White House really gives a rat's debenture.

So the story is that the Pentagon, in the person of one Donald Rumsfeld, is trying like hell to leave out references to the Geneva Convention's article 3 from its soon to be released update of the Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation current version here.

{{Note: the current Field Manual includes the entire 1949 Geneva Conventions as APPENDIX J, in addition to various references to the Conventions throughout the Manual's provisions}}

Article 3 happens to ban "cruel treatment and torture" as well as "humiliating and degrading treatment," which some (Donald Rumsfeld) fear might impede our interrogations of the many "suspected terrorists" who find their way into our hands.  The State Department disagrees with this approach, and wants the Geneva Convention references to stay in.  Congress is unlikely to be happy with a revised manual that seems to contradict its recent anti-torture legislation.

But you know how it goes these days.  Bad guys tend to win.  Just check the election results.

In any case, bet you this whole story raises our moral standing in the world several steps.


It's now over a year after this post, but it's well worth reading.Are you still there, and are there any new posts