Military/Paramilitary Accountability

[Darion]

The purpose of this thread is to explore a sub-topic that grew up on the "Path to 9/11" thread. Particularly, I would like posters to discuss the matters of CIA-operated prisons (secret prisons) and the purpose and operation of Guantanamo Bay.

I ask that if anyone is going to post something in the NEGATIVE (ie., I do not agree with the idea of secret EPW prisons/etc) that you provide an ALTERNATIVE, theoretical or otherwise, if one exists. Keep the logistic considerations of these questions in mind.

On Secret Prisons and Military/Paramilitary Accountability

I personally believe that prisons specifically for EPWs (Enemy prisoners of war) and undeclared foreign fighters MUST exist. I doubt that anyone is willing to take up the side of incorporating these individuals into our own prison system. I further believe that these prisons should not be transparent insofar as watchdog organizations should not be permitted entry. I would also say that any interrogation methods deemed necessary by the military/paramilitary organization in control of the aforementioned prisons should be permitted.

I am willing to put forth that last point for a number of reasons, but primarily because I believe that the military should not be accountable at its highest levels to civilian authority. -That- one you are free to lambaste me on, though the point remains. I believe a less literal relationship should exist, in which the President obtains a "permission for attack/warfare/etc" from Congress, essentially hands a "To do" list to the highest echelon of military leadership, and turns them loose. It was evidenced over and over in Vietnam that allowing civilians to run military operations is an excellent method by which to ensure defeat (See also: Rolling Thunder, Johnson's gradual escalation, etc etc). The very idea of a "gradual escalation of force" as a method of attaining a strategic or literal advantage runs contrary to every established shred of military theory and history.

That having been said, such a relationship does not exist. I believe that the military has become far too sensitive to bad PR due to a series of personnel failures as a result of convoluted "I want everyone to win" mixed signals being sent from the executive branch of government. The Iraq military was literally swept away with the troops that were sent in the beginning. Imagine what we could have accomplished if we added another 75,000 - 100,000. As I said in the other thread, a protracted period of martial law would have been the PERFECT environment to grow an army and domestic police force from scratch. What has happened is a completely avoidable travesty.

I hold the individuals who committed the human rights violations at Abu Ghraib accountable only insofar as they are idiots. Most people do not understand the feeling of being overseas and far, far from home fighting a war for a president that is constantly eviscerated in the press, no matter how many times the eviscerators say they support the troops. This environment is not conducive to good behavior. If EPW handling had been established beneath a different command from CENTCOM and executed by troops specialized in that field, this entire issue might have been entirely avoided. As it was, you left a bunch of New England reservist Military Police in charge of a massive detainee facility who had perhaps two months' training before deployment on those types of operations. Who did -not- see something like this happening eventually?

The main reason I am against transparency at these hypothetical prison facilities is that the Red Cross and other organizations permitted to enter Guantanamo have essentially shown themselves to pander to the inmates. See also: fraudulent reporting of Koran mistreatment. I believe that non-state-actors (nonmilitary, ununiformed) and foreign fighters of the same vein should be afforded only the right to not starve and not die of exposure as well as medical care for life-threatening conditions.

I have posted a lot, so I'll leave it at that for now.

[Savaric]

I don't have long so I'll post briefly and come back later. I'm all for the secret prisons and believe we need them.

Imagine you've got a building somewhere in the U.S. rigged with explosives, but no one knows which one- except for a terrorist that agents got in the field. Would you torture this individual to save hundreds or thousands (fair numbers- terrorists want massive casualties) of people? Women? Kids? This isn't an unrealistic scenario. I wouldn't be surprised at all if something similar has happened more than a couple times since 9/11 where these prisons have halted terrorist plans. I'm sure it probably has.

I firmly believe in good and evil. I also believe in attaining a good balance to prevent evil. This means I believe in doing a little bit of evil for the greater good. I personally think everyone should have this philosophy, but they don't. If punching somebody in the face or humiliating them prevents innocent people from being killed, then I say DO IT.

If you're a bleeding heart liberal and oppose these things then for Christ's sake- go wage war on drunk driving or the aids epidemic or something far worse than this crap. There's plenty worse injustices going on in this world.

[kestra]

I heard an interesting point made, that if these prisons were within the law, why were they held secret? If the techniques used for interogation were within the laws, why weren't they doing them in prisons like Gitmo?
While you won't get a terrorist to reveal his information by saying "pretty please with sugar on top", at some point, even if you get results, you start blurring the lines between ourselves and those who mean to destroy us. Many of us have done things that were wrong, or possibly illegal while nobody was watching. Shit happens, right? It's reasonable to assume questionable interrogation tactics are used in secret prisons.

Before alternatives can be thought of, these are important questions to consider.

[Darion]

I heard an interesting point made, that if these prisons were within the law, why were they held secret? If the techniques used for interogation were within the laws, why weren't they doing them in prisons like Gitmo?

What is secret, however? Is it a prison that no one knows about? What about a prison that is a known location but does not permit nonessential personnel inside?

Speaking of Gitmo, I believe that Gitmo is not an area in which significant human intelligence (via interrogation) is currently gathered. It may have served such a purpose in the past, but it seems like that it is more of a staging area for prisoners awaiting transfer or trial at present.

Also, your argument is not a complete one because in many cases the individuals held at these prisons were not themselves legally able to engage in conflict. This is why the Geneva Conventions argument is somewhat weak, as a large part of the regulations there include the requirement that foreign actors MUST be uniformed combatants under the authority of a nation-state. What then? Do we treat them as foreign fighters anyway? That in and of itself invalidates the application of the GC. In essence, this is advocacy of GC rights for individuals who have themselves violated the GC.

Should we give non-state actors these rights? What about the rights of an American citizen (fair and speedy trial, right against self-incrimination, etc)?

[kestra]

Also, your argument is not a complete one because in many cases the individuals held at these prisons were not themselves legally able to engage in conflict. This is why the Geneva Conventions argument is somewhat weak, as a large part of the regulations there include the requirement that foreign actors MUST be uniformed combatants under the authority of a nation-state. What then? Do we treat them as foreign fighters anyway? That in and of itself invalidates the application of the GC. In essence, this is advocacy of GC rights for individuals who have themselves violated the GC.

I recall reading about this last year. Remember the 4th Geneva Convention was written over 50 years ago, with the bad guys clearly labelled. Terrorists generally don't have a dress code. Does this mean the coalition has carte blanche to treat POW's in any way?

"They may not be entitled to prisoner-of-war status but they are entitled to prisoner-of-war treatment," says Lieutenant-General Michel Gauthier, who commands the Canadian Expeditionary Forces Command and thus oversees all Canadian Forces deployed abroad.

This creates a vicious circle, however when terrorists/foreign fighters aren't protected. Often the U.S. decries abuse but defends interrogations. If the US or coalition forces aren't required by law to provide GC type treatment, why is there outcry when the other side doesn't treat US POW's any better? Like I said before, at some point the line begins to blurr between us and them.

Some interesting reading on POW tribunals and the War Crimes Act I discovered during my research:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060918/brecher

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld

[Darion]

I believe that the entire problem is that the Geneva Conventions are no longer applicable given the evolution of modern warfare. Specifically, the US is viewed as the primary world power and with good reason. The problem inherent in this is that the traditional way to deal with a more powerful force is what is now considered asymmetric, or unconventional, warfare.

I do not believe you can apply the GC to this type of conflict, as by definition the actors working against the opposing force work within an operational gray zone in which the GC conditions are either constantly violated or deliberately skirted. I am not holding the fighters themselves accountable for this, mind you, as it would make no sense for them to abide by conditions that would likely result in them being crushed by a battalion of tanks in a conventional fight.

In the same vein, should the Geneva Conventions apply to our dealings with the same individuals who flout them? I am not saying that we should start shooting at civilians and ambulances, but the GCs were an attempt to legislate morality and decency in the fighting-style of World War II/Korea. As anyone who has read most of my posts knows, I am in support of almost any action provided that it gives a significant military advantage. What currently happens is something to the tune of this:

GC's do not allow us to shoot at people bearing a white flag.
GC's do not allow a unit to use the bearing of a white flag as a method of surprise attack.
Iraqis bear a white flag and then shoot at US troops. This becomes a minor note on CNN's ticker.
Reverse the situation. US troops shoot at Iraqi troops bearing a white flag. What happens?

I have more on this, but I've got to run for now.