There is much discussion of the Geneva conventions this weekend. Basically, it amounts to the Bush administration trying to not be bound by the Geneva conventions.
The Bush administration treats the Geneva convention the same way Enron treated accounting rules. Not as rules to be followed but "guidelines" to be worked around.
This is what's behind the effort to more strictly define torture. If the definition is strictly defined it can then be evaded. Right now the Geneva Convention forbids "humiliating and degrading treatment" which is kind of vague and stops a lot of what the Bush administration wants to do.
Thus we have the National Security advisor on TV with: "I'm saying that nobody knows what humiliating treatment is. What does it mean?"
We know what it means. It's just right now they can't evade that requirement. They are trying to evade the requirements of the Geneva conventions so they can torture people.
1 comment:
I'm impressed that they're actually trying to find a loophole rather just ignoring the rules. We're talking about an administration that does what they want regardless of the rules and regulations. Can we say "wiretapping?"
But, they do have a point...degrading and humiliating is sort of vague. There are all sorts of things that other people enjoy that I find degrading, (though I guess that should be addressed under a different post;)) so perhaps torture should be more strictly defined. Although how you go about defining degradation and humiliation in universal terms is beyond me. Maybe we should just say anything that Bush thinks is a good ideas is probably not....
Post a Comment