Personal blog

So according to this website torture has just become legal in the US.

This seems like a pretty bold statement to be making, but I think it’s fair to say that when a country allows their president to redefine the Geneva conventions (which over 150 other countries in the world have signed, and have NOT redefined to suit their purposes) to clarify language in Common Article 3 of the Geneva convention.

According to this story
‘Further pressed by Gregory for an answer, Bush raises his voice and says, "You can ask this question all you want but the bottom line is — and the American people have got to understand this — that this program won’t go forward… if there are vague standards applied like those in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. It’s just not going to go forward. Now, perhaps some in Congress don’t think the program is important. That’s fine." ‘
Then I suppose the important question is, what exactly does this article say that is so vague to Bush? Let’s read it shall we?

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.
This seems extraordinarily clear to me. I’m going to highlight an important bit that maybe Bush doesn’t want you to see.
‘The following acts are prohibited…violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture…outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment…[and] 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’
Well that basically sums it up doesn’t it? I think maybe Bush is wondering, what exactly counts as torture? Or maybe he’s wondering about the line ‘outrages upon personal dignity’? Maybe we need to clarify these points for him collectively? Read down further for a way to help do this.

Now let’s be clear here. I do not support terrorists, and what they stand for, and I really do think they should be imprisoned for the rest of their lives for the crimes they have committed. However, the Geneva conventions, as agreed upon by over 150 countries have stood as a way of making sure that member countries are not committing atrocities. If you lock up people without charging them with any crimes, without providing any evidence of their guilt, and without any hope of release, then you are violating the Geneva conventions.

These conventions are basically an agreement between countries that say ‘look if you don’t abuse our prisoners of war, we won’t abuse your prisoners of war.’ If the USA decides that the Geneva conventions aren’t worth following in their current form, then we can safely assume that the other countries that have also signed the conventions will follow suit. I think we all know what happens then.
If you want to send an email to George Bush, you are out of luck because the White House has all but removed that capability from you. It may be they were receiving a bit too much ‘junk mail’ from all of their supporters in the US. My suggestion is, take the time to write a letter to George Bush, you can mail your letters to:

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, D.C., 20500

USA
And if you don’t have the time to compose the letter yourself, you can copy and paste this text below into any old text editor (like Word) and then print it out. Just be sure to edit it to suit your preferences and sign it.
Dear President Bush,

As I understand it, you are having difficulty understanding the vague wording of article 3 of the Geneva Convention which states:

"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."
Let me just clarify it for you. Torture is defined by Webster’s online dictionary as:

1. Anguish of body or mind

2. The infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce or afford sadistic pleasure.

3. Distortion or over-refinement of a meaning or argument.
Perhaps the phrase ‘outrages upon personal dignity’, is not clear enough? Well here are some examples of things that I think most of us would consider an outrage on human dignity:

1. Lacking the freedom to practice our religion in the way we see fit.

2. Being urinated on, defecated on, or made to perform sexual acts for the amusement of others.

3. If we should happen to die while in your custody, having our corpses mutilated or otherwise disfigured.
There are of course other possible ‘outrages upon our dignity’, but this is a short list of things you may wish to reinstruct your employees about.

Thank you,

[insert your name here]