A wonderful thread on the legal ramifications of the current American policies on torture.
Along with the illegality of the torture – the US did sign the Geneva convention ini 1994, even realpolitik speaks against torture:
We treat surrendering enemies differently than enemies on the battlefield because of the way human emotions work. Consider this: pretend you’re a conscripted soldier fighting against U.S. forces. You’re people are out-numbered and out-gunned. The Americans give you a chance to surrender. You know that if you accept there’s a fairly good chance you’ll be tortured or abused. You may even be killed during an interrogation. Is it possible that you would rather fight to the death (and take out as many Americans as you can before you go) in that situation? That would be *my* choice, anyway. I’ve often wondered if Taliban and al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan think about the possibility of being sent to Guantanamo if they’re captured. My guess is that they think of it often, and that doesn’t bode well for U.S. forces there. No, there’s a reason we should treat our prisoners/detainees humanely. It really has nothing to do with logic or morality. We do it as a CYA stunt.
Posted by: Jaded at June 15, 2004 01:44 AM
To add to Jaded’s post: As Sen. Biden said, the US signed and ratified the treaty, and thought it was the law of the land, because we did not want our own sons and daughters to be tortured, or "unpleasantly" abused by others. That is the reciprocal nature of treaties. (We also may have had some touch of humanity, but I doubt it.)
Posted by: JC at June 15, 2004 01:58 AM
Surely the American media and people will get their act together to vote or push these war criminals (to be more specific – rapists and murderers and torturers) out of office.