Torture

This will be my one and only "scoop" on this blog.  I understand that basically the following story will appear on CNN tomorrow.  This is an excerpt and includes comments by fellow fighter pilot Ken Cordier (who I knew in a previous incarnation), who was shot down over North Viet-nam in late 1966.  So, he spent some time up north.  The other is the Rev Robert G Certain (who I did not know in that previous incarnation), who was a B-52 crew member shot down over North Viet-nam in 1972.  They both are being presented as bringing their Christian ethics to bear on the issue of torture.  NB:  Those of you with good memories will remember that Ken Cordier was the one Air Force person who supported the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" during the 2004 election.  Those looking for my opinion on that issue may EMail me and put their question(s) to me.  The excerpt follows:

The debate over the uses of torture among people of faith doesn't end with its practice.  It also extends to its definition.

The Geneva Convention says that "no physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war." The 1985 U.N. Convention against torture defines torture as any act by which severe pain or suffering, "whether physical or mental," is inflicted on a person.

Cordier, the Vietnam POW, opposes torture in all circumstances—even the "ticking bomb" scenario.

"Once you're in a pain situation, you'll say anything to get it to stop," Cordier says. "It's not as reliable as more sophisticated methods."

But he doesn't consider waterboarding and other "enhanced techniques" torture.

"Loud music, sleep deprivation, waterboarding—does it leave permanent damage and cause extreme pain?  No," Cordier says.

Rev. Robert G. Certain, another Vietnam vet who is now an Episcopal priest, says waterboarding isn't torture because "it doesn't cause grave, bodily harm.  "See CIA interrogation methods authorized during the Bush-era."

Certain was captured by the Vietnamese in 1972 after his B-52 bomber was shot down.  He wrote about his experiences in the book, Unchained Eagle.

Certain says his faith teaches him to oppose torture under all circumstances.  His military background, however, tells him that it can be easy for interrogators to cross the line.

"To use torture is morally impermissible," Certain says.  "But when we place somebody in uniform into a place of moral ambiguity, there are likely to be times when their judgment is going to step across into the morally impermissible.  They're living in a fog. It's not black and white."

Certain remembers how easily his Vietnamese captors justified crossing the line with him.  They said American prisoners weren't covered by the Geneva Convention.

"They said we were not prisoners of war because there was no legal declaration of war," Certain says.  "Therefore we were air pirates and they could treat us anyway they felt."

My first point is that I am opposed to torture and to actions which seem to come close to torture.  I think that other approaches are more effective.  And even if they weren't, that would still not make torture acceptable.

My second point is that the whole issue of who falls under the Geneva Convention comes up again and again.  We know that the guerrillas in Afghanistan and Iraq don't fall under the Geneva Convention—they don't wear uniforms and they are not serving a nation that has acceded to the Geneva Convention.  And, I agree that that is true.  The North Viet-namese said that our captured airmen were not entitled to treatment under the Geneva Convention, since they were fighting an undeclared war.  This is a key reason I think that while we should assert that the guerrillas are not entitled to Geneva Convention protection, we should state that we will extend it to them anyway, because we are the United States and that is how great powers really operate.

Next I will talk about GITMO, taking another opportunity to show my ignorance and naiveté.

UPDATE

Here is the CNN URL for the interview.

Regards  —  Cliff