Governmental Hypocrisy

Gummint officials are funny people: they'll say one thing one minute, then the next they'll do a complete about-face, all the while claiming that what they're saying *now* is what what they *really* meant all along. There's a simple word that sums up the previous sentence: hypocrisy.

Our Farter-in-Chief has been running around the last week or two, giving speeches about "terra." His latest public missive concerns the transfer of fourteen (fourteen that we know of, anyway) suspects to Guantanamo from overseas prisons.

Overseas prisons? Yep, that's right. Smirk has admitted the CIA spirited captured individuals to secret prisons. These prisons are apparently located in European nations, which has EU members pretty ticked off (see here as well). The U.N. isn't too happy either, and nor are national and international organizations such as Amnesty. Seems there's a pesky issue that crops up every now and then, called human rights, and abuses thereof.

This isn't to say that the capture and interrogation of terrorists should cease; on the contrary, I doubt any sane person, Republican OR Democrat, in this country would advocate just letting them go. But as far as treaty obligations, military procedures, and a basic sense of humanity goes, there should be a bright line between interrogation and torture. When you have places like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, with the abuses we've seen in those places the last few years, it probably doesn't stretch the imagination to picture the secret prisons as being, well, something quite a bit worse.

It's not just the fact that information obtained through torture could potentially be fabricated (if someone was torturing you, just how quickly do you think you'd say anything, *anything* to get your captors to stop? A romp through the history of legal jurisprudence, in this country and many others, will turn up cases where some were railroaded due to confessions elicited under pressure). It's also the perception of the United States as a nation of laws. If we ignore our laws, if we develop double standards, then how can we expect the rest of the world to follow our lead? How can we expect other nations to emulate our system? I've spoken of this before, here and here.

The United States is a republic, the oldest "democracy" presently existing. I also happen to believe it is the best and most advanced nation in recorded history thus far. We as a nation, and as a people, have a responsibility to ourselves and to the rest of the world to be the best we can possibly be. This isn't to say that we should be or we are perfect; no nation, group, or individual ever is. But we should definitely limit our contradictions, our conflicts of interest, our hypocrisy, as much as possible.

Back to Smirk's speech. The part I found the most amusing (not in a hilarious manner, mind you, but in more of a "mm-hmm, yeah, right" way) was his statement:

"I want to be absolutely clear with our people and the world: The United States does not torture," Bush said. "It's against our laws, and it's against our values. I have not authorized it, and I will not authorize it."

Perhaps he never formally authorized torture, and under a different leader, I'd applaud this restatement of basic values. But this is the same man who attached a "signing statement" to the McCain Detainee Amendment (a bill the White House fought tooth and nail to defeat), essentially declaring that Smirk feels that he has the right to insert a loophole in the bill, and allow torture if he chooses to do so. Mind you, this is a bill that states that torture is "against our laws" and "against our values." By issuing this amendment, Smirk is in essence tacitly authorizing the use of torture should he deem it so.

So you'll pardon me if I'm somewhat cynical about Smirk's latest pronouncement. This is an amendment that garnered the support of all but nine Senators (Wayne Allard (R-Colorado), Kit Bond (R-Missouri), Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma), Thad Cochran (R-Mississippi), John Cornyn (R-Texas), James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama), and Ted Stevens (R-Alaska)). This is an amendment that McCain, who is no stranger to torture, drafted using the same international standards and policies against torture that already exist. These aren't new rules he whipped up out of thin air, nor are they applicable to the CIA; the amendment concerns the Armed Forces only. It isn't even an extremely strong amendment; it was itself amended by the Graham-Levin Amendment, which allows the consideration of evidence obtained through torture, and expanded prohibitions against the use of habeas corpus by detainees. In essence, the bill is a toothless tiger. So it is hypocritical of Smirk to state he's against the use of torture when he, Cheney, and many others in the gummint fought against the amendment. It's hypocritical to then "accept" the amendment, but attach a "signing statement" which essentially invalidates the message contained within. It's hypocritical to subsequently piously state that he's against torture and would never authorize it. As it is, Amnesty International argues that with the various loopholes, torture is now more or less official U.S. policy.

To me, that means that not only is our gummint condoning torture in our names, it also means we don't have the standing to admonish nations like, oh say, China, for their human rights abuses. The Chinese, among others, know this, which is why our little lectures don't go anywhere.

Another interesting thing about Smirk's recent speech is his throwing down the gauntlet to Congress, urging that new rules be devised for the creation of military commissions to try the detainees at Guantanamo. This comes after the Supreme Court slapped the gummint's hand and issued a lecture of its own on the limits of presidential powers. As I previously stated in my post on the outcome of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld,

Why coddle "terrorists," you say? There's no need to coddle them. Either they are prisoners-of-war under the Geneva conventions and long-standing international military tradition or they are terrorists. If they are terrorists, they are criminals-- at least that's how I see it. What do you do with criminals? You try them, you convict them, you sentence them. You don't hold them for months and years at a time without charging them. What do you do with prisoners-of-war? You treat them according to Geneva, and you deport/repatriate them as soon as you can.

In the same post, I agreed with Neal Katyal that the present-day military judicial system we have should work just fine. Why waste more time dickering over a new set of rules? Why inject a power struggle between the Executive Branch (which is trying to expand its powers and influence as much as possible) and Congress (which is trying to reassert its Constitutionally mandated powers and restore the balance between the branches of government), when you can just use a system that's worked just fine before?

At the end of the Second World War, an international tribunal sat at Nuremberg, to try and bring to justice the war criminals of Nazi Germany. These proceedings had international support, they were as transparent as possible, and above all, they were relatively speedy. The war in Europe ended in May of 1945; the Nuremberg Trials took place in October and November of that same year. While the Nuremberg Trials are not without controversy (for example, the proceedings convened and progressed under its own rules of evidence), it certainly could be used as a template of sorts for the present time.

Obviously, the "War on Terror" is not a "conventional" war, nor can it be said to have "ended." But this doesn't mean we should abrogate U.S. or international law and our values by detaining indefinitely the prisoners at Guantanamo and elsewhere. It doesn't mean we should try them without allowing the defendants to know the precise nature of the evidence against them.

So far, Smirk's suggested course of action is meeting skepticism; even some GOP leaders aren't inclined to play ball. Lindsey Graham, for one, had this to say:

“It would be unacceptable, legally, in my opinion, to give someone the death penalty in a trial where they never heard the evidence against them,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who has played a key role in the drafting of alternative legislation as a member of the Armed Services Committee and a military judge. “ ‘Trust us, you’re guilty, we’re going to execute you, but we can’t tell you why’? That’s not going to pass muster; that’s not necessary.”

Graham is drafting an alternate proposal that would allow defendants access to all the evidence against them. I'm hoping Congress is smart enough to adopt Graham's proposal-- it'll allow the application of some basic judicial principles to whatever system is ultimately crafted to try the prisoners.

Additionally, Smirk wants the War Crimes Act of 1996 amended to provide cover for U.S. personnel. Although this change is to be supposedly aimed at the rank and file in the Army and elsewhere, such a change would provide protection for people like Smirk and his White House cronies. I'm outraged by this; I don't think that we should pretend we are morally superior the rest of the world, because we aren't. Secondly, I think setting up a double standard is a horrible idea. Why should we insist the rest of the world abide by international law and pay for their crimes, but we shouldn't have to?

Ironically, this legislation was initiated by a rather conservative member of Congress, Walter B. Jones (R-NC), who intended it to be used to prosecute those who tortured or abused U.S. troops. As R. Jeffrey Smith wrote in the Washington Post, "Jones and other advocates intended the law for use against future abusers of captured U.S. troops in countries such as Bosnia, El Salvador and Somalia, but the Pentagon supported making its provisions applicable to U.S. personnel because doing so set a high standard for others to follow." Again, there's that notion of a high standard. How can we punish others for violations of the Geneva Conventions if we don't apply the same rules to ourselves? It's called hypocrisy.

Finally, the U.S. Army has amended its field manual, and has incorporated Geneva Convention principles within, such as banning torture and degrading treatment, specifically including nudity and the hooding of prisoners. Even if Smirk wants to continue to be a hypocrite, at least the Army is starting to correct their past actions. There's still a long way to go, but at least it's a beginning.