Everyone is off on a tear over the Pentagon's desire to alter the Army manual. I read the LA Times article and it can hardly be described as informative.
The Pentagon's move to omit a ban on prisoner humiliation from the basic guide to soldier conduct faces strong State Dept. opposition.
This has the smell of a non-story coming out of the State Department. If you read Article 3 - the one in question, it becomes a little easier to understand the potential problem. I've emboldened the item which seems to be at issue.
Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.
Frankly, for all anyone knows right now, a new version of the manual might be a vast improvement. In our age of political correctness, the degradation and humiliation clause screams for refinement. Hell, I saw people being degraded and humiliated in basic training. There is no simple translation for what that element of the article even means.
Meanwhile, this ninny ... who is reminding me of a kind of fellow I saw humiliated in basic, is screaming torture and Jeff Goldstein takes him apart here. Though I think it would be a wonderful idea to see what is actually being proposed, as the original article certainly could stand some clarification.
Most likely we are all reading this in the news today as a result of some internal power struggle for position in the debate which, in the end, may actually clarify and improve the article, as it should. Rushing to judgment without even knowing what it is we are judging seems a bit silly to me. And you can't take enough solid information away from the LATimes article to know precisely what is being proposed.
Comments