This issue is going to rank pretty highly on the importance list until the elections roll around, I’m fairly sure. Bush has gone on record saying he won’t interrogate people AT ALL unless he gets his way with the tribunal bill.

“You cannot ask a young intelligence officer to violate the law,” Bush said. “If Congress passes a law that does not clarify the rules … the program is not going forward.”

Okay, now if this doesn’t sound like the equivalent of a child stomping his foot and saying “well if I can’t be team captain then you don’t get to play at my house” then I don’t know what does. And that deserves a little look into just what’s going on with all of those secret CIA prisons. Namely, this is a much bigger issue than we realize.

Captured on battlefields, pulled from beds at midnight, grabbed off streets as suspected insurgents, tens of thousands now have passed through U.S. detention, the vast majority in Iraq. Many say they were often interrogated around the clock, then released months or years later without apology, compensation or any word on why they were taken.

Gitmo, Bagram, who knows how many others are out there. I’ve been over it multiple times, but the great bulk of those who end up in these places aren’t even guilty of anything. And, most terrifyingly, they can’t defend themselves. No access to evidence, no formal charges.

Now, that’s all scary enough, to consider that we’re holding people for over a year regardless of evidence against them. There’s more though. Remember the whole “when they stand up, we’ll stand down” hoo hockey we’ve been fed? Well…

Meanwhile, officials of Nouri al-Maliki’s 4-month-old Iraqi government say the U.S. detention system violates Iraq’s national rights.

At the Justice Ministry, Deputy Minister Busho Ibrahim told the AP it has been “a daily request” that the detainees be brought under Iraqi authority.

Faaaaantastic. Maliki, aside from shaking hands with Ahmadinejad and declaring a bit of unity with Iran, is now saying that the American prisons are wrong and should be gotten rid of. They want to try the detainees under their laws, but Bush? No, we gotta do things HIS way. Hell with what Iraq thinks.

And what of torture anyway? After all, it’s an important thing to do when you need to get information. I mean, if someone strapped me to a table and beat me, I know I sure as hell would tell ‘em what they wanted, right? Apparently, no.

Because those being interrogated expect to be tortured, they’re caught off guard by non-violent approaches, and often release information more easily, Cloonan said.

“In their manual it says the opposition will torture you, so they expect it,” he said. “When you don’t do it, it has the opposite effect.”

Damn. Looks like there goes that one.

Of course, there’s the real overlying point. The one that Bush always makes when it comes to “clarifying” the rule. Bush’s argument is that we need to make the articles more specific, that what they say is too vague.

Let’s say that’s true. The Geneva Conventions are vague. The part he keeps talking about is within Article Three and what can and cannot be done to prisoners:

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;

Emphasis where I put it, as that’s the part Bush seems to quote on its own. You know what? He’s got a pretty good point. What is an outrage upon human dignity? What defines cruel treatment? How can we tell what is or what isn’t degrading? Now, first off, I’d like to say that chances are THIS is degrading and humiliating:

That said, we do need some clarifications. Waterboarding? How hard can you hit someone? Are dogs that degrading or are they just scary? Dammit, we need some answers!

So does that mean Bush can make a bill to send to Congress? Hell no. The United States doesn’t get to decide how we interpret those phrases for itself. That’s opening the doors to every country to say what is and isn’t cruel or degrading. What if other countries disagree with our interpretations?

The Geneva Conventions are an international agreement, thus clarifications on them must be agreed upon internationally. To suggest that any one country has the right to say what THEY believe them to mean is to suggest that they all do. Meaning Iran, Afghanistan, or whoever else gets a hold of our soldiers has free reign to do whatever they want as long as they said its how they interpreted Article III.

If the presidents wants clarification, take it to the international community. Get everyone to agree on what the rules are. Otherwise, our soldiers are in some deep trouble, to say the least.

[tags]bush, torture, united nations, cia, prisons, war[/tags]

I got sent this video by a reader showing how Bush sounds now versus how he did as the governor of Texas. It’s pretty revealing.

[youtube]pw4Bhmm22xo[/youtube]

So there’s the question for you: what happened? Why is Bush an idiot now and not then? My two cents: Bush wasn’t hiding as much then. He’s able to speak well when he’s not trying to conceal the truth. Here’s a fantastic article on Kos that explains it further.

[tags]bush, video[/tags]

Interesting. While we’re repeatedly told that the problem is that Iran refuses to stop enriching uranium, it seems that the real issue is that they don’t want to be bullied into it.

Iran said on Monday the idea it was prepared to shelve uranium enrichment for a limited time had been misunderstood by the West, the government spokesman said.

“Iran’s acceptance of limited suspension is a misunderstanding. We have not reached any conclusion over the issue yet,” Gholamhossein Elham told a weekly news conference.

They don’t want preconditions and threats, which is apparently why they’ve been stalling on the deadlines. So is there any solution? Looks like the EU and UN came up with a neat idea:

U.S. and EU diplomats told Reuters on Saturday that major powers were considering a joint meeting with Iran this week that would exclude its arch foe the United States, as a way of bridging the divide over Iran’s nuclear program.

Amazing. It almost seems like the US is more of a liability than an asset when it comes to Middle East foreign policy. Imagine that.

[tags]iran, nuclear, united nations, usa, politics[/tags]