Tortured Stance On Human Rights

[Kay]

Amnesty International released their report on human rights abuses, and it has a pretty scathing take on the United States. One of the top abuses they list are indefinite detentions at Guantanamo Bay, the imprisonment of conscientious objector soldiers, and the coercive interrogation policies in place. It's not really surprising that the United States would be subject to scrutiny by AI, given the controversial nature of these practices domestically. (Although there's a pretty strong argument to be made against COs in a volunteer military, unless that person enlisted before the United States was at war.) AI's report is a reminder of how the Bush administration's policies on war and torture damage the credibility of the United States when decrying other countries for humanitarian abuses. What the Bush administration has essentially done is used the second-tier excuse of human-rights abuses to invade Iraq, then piled on to the laundry list of human rights violations in the world with his own policies on torture and indefinite detention. The record on human rights had damaged the credibility of legitimate work Americans want to conduct on human rights abuses in the future, even given a new administration that is presumably less comfortable with torture.

Other practices by the United States in the report included were failure by the government to properly address sexual violence against Native American women, the criminal justice system that includes a death penalty, and victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita who (still) lack access to housing.

Comments

The idea that a soldier has a case to be considered a conscientious objector has always struck me as prima facie ridiculous, whether or not the enlistment occurred before during, or after any particular war. The purpose of a military is to engage in warfare, or to prevent warfare by being prepared to do so.

Refusing to serve in a particular military misadventure, such as the Iraq catastrophe, may be done in good conscience, but the refuser ought to be prepared to suffer the consequences.

Posted by Invigilator | May 28, 2008 4:51 PM

I'm reasonably hopeful that if the next President immediately returns our detention and interrogation policies to what they were before President Bush, our credibility on human rights issue will also be restored relatively quickly.

Of course, it would help a lot to prosecute those who violated U.S. law. And that might just happen, although I suspect a large wave of pardons are in the works.

Posted by DTM | May 28, 2008 5:02 PM

The fact that AI treats the failure of the U.S. to provide perfect care for Katrina victims seriously undermines the value one can give its reports. A couple of summers ago, thousands of French citizens died during a prolonged heat wave. Did AI call this a human rights violation? I wonder.

Posted by Alan Vanneman | May 28, 2008 5:09 PM

I agree that the damage may well be temporary. But we will only regain and maintain our credibility through a national dialogue, not just from sweeping all of George's problems under a rug and saying "OK, it's all in the past."

On a separate note, as vile as George's detainment and torture policies are, AI blew their credibility on this question and (sadly) aren't really an indicator of anything relating to US human rights credentials anymore.

Posted by Grunthos | May 28, 2008 5:13 PM

I haven't read the report, but I don't know how you can discuss human rights in the U.S. without mentioning rampant rape in prisons. Waterboarding is an abomnination, but it pales in comparison to the unimaginable assaults that many prisoners routinely face. Until we start treating that reality as a grave and massive human rights violation, I don't think we have much to say to the world about human rights.

Posted by jbd | May 28, 2008 5:13 PM

A couple of summers ago, thousands of French citizens died during a prolonged heat wave. Did AI call this a human rights violation?

You tell me. Were those people living near heat levies that everybody knew wouldn't be able to hold back a serious heat wave, but nobody took any steps to ameliorate?

Or was the French heat wave an unprecedented situation that caught those people culturally off-guard? I lived in Paris for a summer in the 90's and I don't think I remember seeing even a single air conditioner.

Posted by Chet | May 28, 2008 5:24 PM

Invigilator, it's not uncommon for soldiers to learn things about war and soldiering they didn't really understand -- or, perhaps, of which they were in denial -- during their first tour. Our culture so insulates us from the realities of war, and romanticizes those facets of warfare we commonly see, that it's not surprising that open-minded folks who volunteer to "fight for freedom" might rethink things when they realize how incompetent and capricious their leaders are, or might hesitate to embrace learning a third way to kill a fellow human being with their bare hands.

True, they should have thought this through before volunteering, but it's understandable why they don't.

Back to the main topic of the post: among my regrets of these past decades is how it has become obvious that we're a craven, immoral people. While I think the prosecutions DTM advocates would help a bit, the widespread reforms and scores of jail terms required will be thought of as "too divisive" or, worse yet, "partisan."

Posted by JP | May 28, 2008 5:29 PM

Remember when other countries disappeared people? Those were the days!

The recent disasters in Burma and China reminded of Katrina in one regard. Didn't we refuse international aid at the time?

Posted by An Outhouse | May 28, 2008 5:33 PM

Say what you will about the Iraq war, that it was ill-conceived, based on lies, mismanaged, etc., but Saddam's human rights abuses were anything but second tier, he was a first tier abuser. Now if the case had been made in 02 that we need to take down Saddam because he is a tyrant then we could have had a debate on that and (probably) decided not to go, but Bush didn't feel he could win that argument so he ginned up some nonsense. But lets be real, Saddam was a bad, bad man.

Posted by Evan | May 28, 2008 5:40 PM

Evan,

That may be true, but, as we are reminded every day, only a bad, bad man can keep Iraq under control. Perhaps that's why the Bushies didn't spend more time making the case about Saddam's human rights abuses in 2002.

Posted by Greg | May 28, 2008 6:26 PM

It's not really surprising that the United States would be subject to scrutiny by AI, given that AI is an anti-American organization.

*fixed*

Posted by Al | May 28, 2008 6:34 PM

"Although there's a pretty strong argument to be made against COs in a volunteer military, unless that person enlisted before the United States was at war."

Even if they enlisted before, they should understand that the individual soldier does not get a choice as to where (or if) they get deployed. Giving soldiers veto power at that level is the road to hell.

Posted by James Robertson | May 28, 2008 6:35 PM

Actually, James, seeing as I'm in Renaissance/Reformation history, something that's recently struck me is that, as we turn increasingly to contractors (aka mercenaries) to provide us with troops, we may very well see a replay of soldiers' vetoing their deployments.

In early modern Europe, there are plenty of examples of troops like those raised by, say, Mansfeld, that simply refused to fight. Not to mention the tendency of the Swiss and the Landsknechts to strike for higher pay, even right before battle. We may have to revive "Point d'argent, point de Suisse" as a phrase.

Posted by Greg | May 28, 2008 6:47 PM

I'm reasonably hopeful that if the next President immediately returns our detention and interrogation policies to what they were before President Bush, our credibility on human rights issue will also be restored relatively quickly.

Yes, it'll do wonders for our credibility to return to torturing in secrecy and lying about it. Out of sight, out of mind.

Posted by Mixner | May 28, 2008 6:58 PM

Here comes "torture troll" Mixner, again.

Fuck off, troll.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 28, 2008 7:06 PM

Although there's a pretty strong argument to be made against COs in a volunteer military, unless that person enlisted before the United States was at war.

Um, no. If someone knew they were a CO and signed up anyway thinking they wouldn't go to war and ended up in Iraq, then they gambled and lost. Life isn't fair.

Also, people coming in to the US military get asked if they are conscientious objectors during the application process and inprocessing. I remember the subject coming up at least twice when I was on my way in to the AF. If you are a objector, the military is not the right career for you.

Posted by guineapigfury | May 28, 2008 7:20 PM

Actually, James, seeing as I'm in Renaissance/Reformation history, something that's recently struck me is that, as we turn increasingly to contractors (aka mercenaries) to provide us with troops, we may very well see a replay of soldiers' vetoing their deployments.
*************************************************

Actually, there's little chance of that happening as the number of armed security contractors in Iraq is really pretty small.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-09-03-contactor_N.htm

There are about 6,000 armed private security guards working under military contracts in Iraq, Scott said. They are part of about 160,000 contractors supporting the 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, Scott said.

*************************************************

Lots of articles focus on the the larger 160K number and don't point out that all but 6K of them are working in the mess hall, driving trucks and stocking warehouses.

I've never heard of any of the armed security guards taking part in any sort of offensive operation - as much scrutiny as this gets I'm sure we would have heard about it if they were. Most appear to be riding shotgun on convoys, advising Iraqi police, or guarding warehouses.

I often wonder about this casual use of the word "mercenary" for security guards. My American Heritage Dictionary defines a mercenary as "A professional soldier who is hired by a foreign country." Are security guards professional soldiers? Are American citizens hired as security guards by their own government mercenaries?

Landsknects, Swiss and Spanish mercenaries didn't get hired to guard the prince's warehouses - they got hired to take it to his enemies. I don't think it's a good analogy

Posted by Campesino | May 28, 2008 7:52 PM

AI's report is a reminder of how the Bush administration's policies on war and torture damage the credibility of the United States when decrying other countries for humanitarian abuses.

Not really. It's more a reminder that AI represents the type of people that say Bush's polities are destroying the credibility of the US. It's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Posted by Mark Adams | May 28, 2008 8:04 PM

Say what you will about the Iraq war, that it was ill-conceived, based on lies, mismanaged, etc., but Saddam's human rights abuses were anything but second tier, he was a first tier abuser.

No one said that his abuses were second-tier as abuses but that they were on the second tier of reasons for why we went into Iraq.

Posted by Glaivester | May 28, 2008 9:40 PM