Senate Supports Interrogation Limits

[Capitalism Forever]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5100502062.html

The Senate defied the White House yesterday and voted to set new limits on interrogating detainees in Iraq and elsewhere

[...]89 senators sided with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a former prisoner of war in Vietnam who led the fight for the interrogation restrictions.

( a ) In General.--"No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

( b ) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose any geographical limitation on the applicability of the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment under this section.

( c ) Limitation on Supersedure.--The provisions of this section shall not be superseded, except by a provision of law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act which specifically repeals, modifies, or supersedes the provisions of this section.

( d ) Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Defined.--In this section, the term ``cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment'' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984. "

[BurgessLau]

I haven't made a special study of actual U. S. practices in imprisoning "enemy combatants" in this non-war war. Nor have I studied present laws and military regulations presumably governing the treatment of such prisoners. I am relying, for the moment, on a variety of news reports over the last few years -- a very shaky approach.

The question that arises for me, about this controversy over the treatment of "enemy combatants," is whether it is, so far, anything more than a dispute between subjectivists (conservatives who believe government employees can do anything they want to do to the people they capture and not account for their actions) and intrinsicists (leftists who believe all individuals are of equal worth and must be treated exactly the same regardless of circumstances and context).

An objective approach would be to recognize that in certain situations -- which should be covered by written, explicit, objective law and administrative procedures -- certain enemies of the West, identified by objective procedures, can justifiably be treated "inhumanely" but always under objective control (for example, always having written statements about why individuals were treated in such ways, who was involved in the treatment, what the outcomes were, and so forth).

If I were investigating this further, I would first want to know about the present situation. What laws and administrative military procedures now exist -- and are enforced -- for objectifying the treatment of "enemy combatants"?

P. S. -- I suspect that the very existence of such terms as "enemy combatants" is a result of the lack of objectivity in the approach that has been taken by the U. S. executive and Congress: There was no formal, legal, declaration of war -- that is, no written, objective statement declaring war, identifying enemies, and setting criteria for deciding when the war has been won. This failure, among others, ripples through and distorts later situations such as this controversy over the "inhumane" treatment of "enemy combatants."

Edited October 6, 2005 by BurgessLau

[Capitalism Forever]

conservatives who believe government employees can do anything they want to do to the people they capture and not account for their actions

I don't think most conservative politicians believe that at all. If they did, this bill would have been defeated, not passed with only 9 Republicans voting against it.

[BurgessLau]

I don't think most conservative politicians believe that at all. If they did, this bill would have been defeated, not passed with only 9 Republicans voting against it.

I am bewildered by your response. Has someone in this thread claimed that "most conservative politicians" suport the subjectivist position I suggested as a philosophical analysis? Please note that I said "conservatives who ...." I did not say "conservatives, who ...." The who clause was delimiting not characterizing all conservatives. It refers to some conservatives (I have heard in the last couple of years). Which ones? The ones who hold that philosophical position.

Another problem I note is that I mentioned conservatives. You have changed the terms of discussion to "Republicans." Do you believe all Republicans are conservatives (whatever that means to you) and vice versa?

The basic issue here should be philosophically analyzing the various positions as a first step towards understanding the significance of this vote. If my analysis is flawed, as it may very well be, what would you suggest as an alternative?

[Capitalism Forever]

Please note that I said "conservatives who ...." I did not say "conservatives, who ...." The who clause was delimiting not characterizing all conservatives.

I see, and I apologize for my mistake. Seems like I've gotten so used to reading posts with bad spelling that my mind imagines commas even where they aren't there.

I know that some conservatives (especially ones outside Washington) have advocated a more aggressive approach to interrogations, but has the idea that government can torture without accountability been really influential among them? I think the problem we are facing is that these voices (advocating more aggressive interrogations) have not been influential at all, and their leftist rivals have convinced an overwhelming majority of the Senate of their false ideas.