Torture illegal? Apparently not - if you’re Bush

What are the Republicans doing?

News stories on Sept. 14 reported that the Senate bills regarding military tribunal rules were in direct contrast with what President Bush had requested. I don’t know if the Senate’s rejection of Bush’s plans to “redefine” Article III of the Geneva Accords is simply politically motivated, or genuine attempts to do what is right. Since Bush’s approval rating is so low, possibly due to his admission that terror detainees have been held and tortured in secret prisons overseas, Republicans could just be trying to distance themselves from Bush to ensure re-election. Whatever the reason, I am glad to see the Senate Armed Services Committee pass a bill to protect detainees’ rights because this behavior is never acceptable for anyone and it is really hypocritical to pick and choose which Geneva rules to follow.

Most Americans agree that terrorists must be stopped at all costs. Also, most Americans agree that people who are not citizens are not entitled to the protections given by the Constitution. I agree as well. However, I do not find the actions of the United States military, including Bush’s new plans, acceptable at all. The President would like Congress to pass legislation that would allow military tribunals to withhold evidence used to prosecute defendants from the defendants and their lawyers. Also, his new plan would allow heresay testimony and “coerced” testimony from defendants, both of which had previously been banned in tribunals, to be used against suspects.

So basically, Bush could continue to capture terror suspects, torture them until they say something, and then use those statements in court against them without ever telling them what they are accused of. Seems like an abuse of power to me.

Even though terror suspects are not usually under the protection of the Constitution, I believe that the Constitution serves as an ideological guide for Americans and how individuals should live. The framers of the Constitution were very careful to provide numerous protections for the accused in the Bill of Rights. They wanted to be sure that the government did not abuse its power and just imprison anyone for any reason or use unacceptable methods to get them to testify against themselves.

We believe that criminals must be proven guilty, and not tortured until they yell out anything to make it stop. We believe that people who are accused of crimes should have sufficient evidence to prove these claims without mistreating them. We shouldn’t be afraid to follow the same ideological guidelines for war criminals simply because they are suspected of being a terrorist.

The Geneva Accords also provide specific objections to mistreatment of prisoners of war by forbidding “violence to lige and person, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture,” as well as “outrages upon personal dignity and humiliating and degrading treatment.” Unfortunately, we know that this is exactly what American intelligence officials are doing to detainees in prisons.      Now Bush wants to further decline in civility and refuse these suspects the right to know the charges against them and how they are prosecuted.

Many of the objections in Congress to passing a bill like Bush’s come from key Republicans, Democrats, and military lawyers and officials. They are afraid that changing the guidelines for countries to follow during military operations may open the door for American soldiers to be treated the same. I think this is a very valid argument considering that we would never allow our soldiers to be treated this way. Not to mention the fact that we are being completely hypocritical.

One of the main objections to the violence used by “terrorists” is the fact that they target civilians with their attacks. Really, that is the only difference between when the United States attacks or wages war and when terrorists fight for an ideal. The Geneva Accords act as a guideline for acceptable warfare, in which targeting civilians is prohibited. This is why we oppose terrorism; they kill civilians, specifically our civilians, and this is not acceptable in combat. Yet we have no qualms about violating the Geneva Accords to torture and mistreat prisoners. As a matter of fact, Bush wants to slowly extend the legality of his actions. This destroys our credibility as a nation because it is hypocritical to condemn others for being uncivilized for breaking the rules, yet we are somehow justified in doing the same.

Believe me, I am not advocating that terrorism should not be stopped. Any time people are dying and waging war, I object. However, Americans should not be blinded by the word “terrorist” to the point that we can treat people in an unjust manner that violates everything we know is right. We also don’t have the right to pick and choose what rules are “right” to follow in international agreements regarding warfare. We either stop condemning terrorists for not following the rules or start following them ourselves.