Here's RJ Eskow on the subject at HuffingtonPost:

Here's where the Republican Party has brought the United States: We are being lectured on the immorality of torture by Uganda.

...

The crowd that's in power now talks about our values, but they can't wait to dump them. They talk about being better than the terrorists, then can't wait to act just like them. They're a stain on our national honor.

--Socialist With A Gold Card

The question never asked about all that concerned 'Command Responsabilty.' What happened there went on too long for commanders not to know that at least something fishy was going on. Soimething that demanded their attention. That never happend leading me to believe that they either knew and approved or just didn't want to know and so avoided knowing.

Troops might, on occassion be successful in sneaking beer into the barracks but to be able to do so every night of the week means command negligence. Period. The troops punished for those acts deserved punishment and I do not in the least feel sorry for them for being punished. However, the fact that ONLY they were punished is the real crime.

President Bush's goal in this redefinition of Comman Article 3 is a continuation and broading of this defferal of command responsabilty and it is now clear that it is with his approval.

Take Care, Be Good and don't play in the street!

SteveMule

Excerpt: "If you just look at how we are perceived in the world and the kind of criticism we have taken over Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and renditions... whether we believe it or not, people are now starting to question whether we're following our own high standards," Powell told The Washington Post...

..."To say that we want to modify, clarify or redefine Common Article 3, which has not been modified for the 57 years of its history, I think adds to the doubt" about U.S. morality, Powell said.  

It boggles the mind how Bush apologists polish every turd passed along to them from Turd Blossom Rove and Bush.  What do former alcoholic Chickenhawks Bush and Cheney know about military justice that highly decorated military personnel Colin Powell, John McCain, Chuck Hagel, and others don't?  Hell, what have Bush and Cheney been right about at all? 

Bush has also denied the existence of secret CIA torture prisons, then flip-flopped and hailed them for how valuable they have been.  He has not denied that torture like water-boarding has been used but denies that it constitutes torture.  No wonder the USA is hated around the globe like never before.  We conduct ourselves exactly opposite from the way we advocate for the rest of the world. 

P.S. Could anyone believe that a U.S. president got into Matt Lauer's face and bullied him about people wanting to "murder your families"?

It seems pretty obvious that we have another "cancer on the presidency".  Every day we get more indications that people in high places are trying to fabricate escape routes and find scapegoats.

Big Democratic wins in November can bring us closer to cleaning up this mess, but the damage already done to America's reputation will take responsible government decades to mend.

Mr. Nixon told us that when the president does it, it's not illegal.  Fortunately, he didn't have the other two branches of government in his fan club.  His new Supreme Court has caused Mr. Bush more heartburn than I expected, but will they side with him in the rough?

The international community is powerless to thwart him even if he does become an American Pinochet.

His best bet would be to elect a crony in 2008, by hook or crook, who will subsequently pardon the bastard. 

Why not dispense with rhetoric and answer the question? What makes the Geneva Conventions different from every other treaty, in which both signatories are required to live up to the terms of the treaty, otherwise it's null and void?

Are you suggesting that the Geneva Conventions codify the morality of war? Whose morality? And on what basis do we make it international law? And how do we justify expanding it to cultures which have a different morality?

Speaking of facts, isn't it a fact that neither Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, or Lebanon are signatories to the Geneva Conventions, and are therefore not bound by them? Do you acknowledge that fact?

Exactly what authority are you questioning, and what answers are you looking for? We know what answers the Bush administration is looking for, "What actions constitute violations of human dignity?" That's an important question to ask, don't you think?

Some answers are obvious, others less so. Consider: how effective would an interrogation be where the subject is kept in perfect dignity and comfort? Obviously it would be totally ineffective; the subject would have no reason to answer any questions. Either we accept that interrogation must be uncomfortable to some degree, or we forego interrogation entirely. We may well take the latter option, but are we willing to pay the cost in American lives if we do? If, on the other hand, we accept that interrogation by necessity involves some level of discomfort for the subject, then we absolutely need rules to determine what is acceptable and what isn't.

This isn't rhetoric; it's being practical.

Is sleep deprivation degrading? How about noisy environments? What about non damaging physical distress? How about psychological distress? For that matter, is the very act of imprisonment degrading? Sound arguments can be made for and against each category listed above, so doesn't it make sense that we get some formalized rules on what techniques are allowable and what aren't?

Nuke Mecca and get it over with!

Your obvious implication is that if some treaties are being violated, why should we follow any of them in order to protect "the American way"?

You can't there from here, Chuck, without a major logical error. My point is that a treaty is a multilateral agreement between two or more parties. If one side breaks the treaty, or is not a signatory to it, the terms and conditions of that treaty do not apply to either party. That fact has no implications for other treaties, especially if they involve different parties. For example, if Randy and I sign an agreement, you are not covered by that agreement, unless you sign onto it as well. If you and I sign a separate agreement, and you break it, that does not release me from my obligations to Randy.

So there's no need for an all out world war just yet.

Now try answering the actual question: Why should we apply the terms of the Geneva Conventions to nations that have not signed on to them, and are actively breaking the requirements therein? What makes the Geneva Conventions a treaty that we should follow unilaterally?

Police use what the ICRC consider coersive methods all the time in thier interrogations. They lie, intimidate, psychologically manipulate, isolate, and terrify their subjects. The verbally threaten them, they subject them to strained lighting, uncomfortable temperature, etc, and through it all, manage to elicit a tremendous amount of good information.

You don't want to answer the question as posed. You want me to answer it.

Nice try but it won't fly.

You and others keep harping on the fact that the Convention has been adequate for 60 years without requiring new definitions. An odd argument coming from a progressive, who usually preaches that changing times and circumstances require changing definitions, but we'll go with it.

The Geneva Conventions clearly ban all forms of coercive interrogation of POWs, whether it is considered torture or not. They also clearly define what a POW is, which our hypothetical captive does not meet. That was part of the scenario.

My question was simply this: If you support the Geneva Conventions' definition, then how many American lives are you willing to sacrifice to apply those definitions to a man who by the Convention itself, does not merit its protections?

You're trying to selectively apply the policies of the Conventions, giving the terrorists the benefits of the Conventions without requiring that they operate under its restrictions. Why do you think they defined POWs so specifically? Could it perhaps be so that those who operate outside the rules of war not be allowed to take advantage of the protections those rules apply?

Why else make the distinction?

So my answer to your question is this: If the captured man meets the definition of a POW as defined by the Geneva Conventions, then he should be afforded all the protections of the Conventions, including the right to be free from all forms of coercive questioning.

As for your ideas about sociopathy, that would require the belief that I alone am human, that all others are something less than human, here only for my uses. If I believe that aggressive methods are required but only justified by the need to save other Americans, then the definition of sociopath no longer applies, since I've demonstrated that I value other people outside of my own immediate group. Here's the difference. A sociopath would employ coercive means for their own sake; an interrogator uses them to elicit information to save lives. The motivation is the key factor.

OK, I answered your question. Are you going to answer mine?

I doubt you've actually learned anything in this exercise.

He didn't say he learned anything. He said he "learned what he came here to learn." In other words, it sounds more like he came to confirm his preconcieved idea that liberals and Democrats are soft on terror because they don't support the idea of torture. I guess he can include some prominent Repulicans too, however. Guys like Colin Powell.

Despite all the bleating and crowing about "compromise," Bush got everything he wanted. The Dems in the Senate don't have the spine to filibuster this Constitutional trainwreck, so it'll be up to the Supreme Court to put a stop to it.

God, I hope John Paul Stevens lives until at least the end of January 2009.

--Socialist With A Gold Card