Clarifying The Geneva Conventions
Torture, As An Issue of Politics

By Sara Pentz

There has been much said in the past few weeks—and for several years before that—about the roll of torture in modern day warfare. This issue was publicly resurrected in the January 2005 Senate confirmation hearings for Albert Gonzales as President George W. Bush’s nominee for attorney general. It was clear from the beginning that Senate Democrats planed to turn the confirmation hearings into an attack on President Bush and his nominee. In fact, they were quite specific about their intentions even prior to the hearings—as was reported in some of the media.

It was the liberal Democrats’ political agenda to allege that President Bush conspired with his former legal counsel, Mr. Gonzales, to rewrite the Geneva Contentions—a document adopted in August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War. Their intent was to attack both the President and Mr. Gonzales for trying to clarify the concept of torture as defined in The Conventions.

For their purposes the Democrats consider the Geneva Conventions sacrosanct and tamper-proof. While, ironically, they do not consider the Constitution of the United States as such. Nevertheless, they took this stand because they were determined to slur the character of Mr. Gonzoles and President Bush. This and this alone constituted their goals and tactics throughout the hearings.

The Democrats focused on two memos written by Mr. Gonzales each of which sought to clarify the Conventions’ concept of prisoner interrogation with regard to the changing modes of contemporary warfare. One memo written by Gonzales in January 2002 asserted that terrorists captured overseas by Americans do not merit the protections of the Geneva Conventions. The other, addressed to him in August 2002, argued for a more narrow definition of torture as "excruciating and agonizing pain."

Henry Mark Holzer, a constitutional and appellate lawyer, and Professor Emeritus at Brooklyn Law School, www.henrymarkholzer.com, addresses this subject in his recent article “In Defense of Torture.” Observe his reasoning:

Some of the commentators, in their analysis and discussion of the phenomenon of torture, admit being deeply troubled by how a democracy deals with the question of torture generally, let alone in the extreme example of the so-called “ticking time bomb” situation.

Until recently the question was hypothetical. It no longer is. There are variations on the ticking time bomb situation, but the essence is in this plausible scenario: A known terrorist in FBI custody, whose information is credible, won’t disclose where in Washington, DC, he has secreted a “weapon of mass destruction” – a nuclear bomb – set to detonate in two hours. The Bureau is certain that the terrorist will never voluntarily reveal the bomb’s location. In two hours our nation’s capital could be wiped from the face of the earth, our government decimated, surrounding areas irredeemably contaminated, and the United States laid defenseless to unimaginable predation by our enemies.

What to do?

Accepting these facts for the sake of argument, we have only two choices. Do nothing, and suffer the unimaginable consequences, or torture the information out of the terrorist.

There are many people among us – Jimmy Carter-like pacifists and Ramsey Clark-type America haters come to mind – who would probably stand by idly and endure an atomic holocaust. But most people would doubtless opt for torture, albeit reluctantly. These realists would be correct. They would be entitled to be free of even a scintilla of moral guilt, because torture – of whatever kind, and no matter how brutal – in defense of legitimate self-preservation is not only not immoral, it is a moral imperative. (Emphasis added)

In this last sentence, Mr. Holzer, speaks to the justification for torture as used in a war setting. His examination of the issue is thorough, logical, legally documented and perfectly crafted.

The Democrat’s Real Purpose

The Democrats used smear tactics to create the big lie about Mr. Gonzalez’s motives, actions and behavior. They sought to divert attention from the real issue—the necessity of reexamining the morality of torture. They hoped to profit from these tactics. They wanted to increase their political currency and decrease the good will of Mr. Gonzales and President Bush. But, this kind of twisted political maneuvering did not work because Mr. Gonzales was confirmed as Attorney General on February 3, 2005. In fact, it was openly stated that his confirmation was assured prior to the hearings. Clearly the hearings were prolonged as a disguise for attacking the President.

Liberals use these tactics whenever they can, no matter what the context, in order to punish Mr. Bush and whomever he nominates for a position in the government—even when those nominated are imminently qualified beyond question.

Witness the harangue they generated throughout the confirmation hearings for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who was vilified for her so-called false reasoning involving the U.S. in the Iraq. Her patriotism, her judgment, her loyalty, her intellect were all attacked with impunity. It was a sordid circus. This behavior from less than honorable, politically partisan people like Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Senator John Kerry, defeated presidential candidate, and Sen. Ted Kennedy, was shameful. Their defamatory wailings do not sit well in the once revered institution of the United State Senate. They only do damage to themselves.

When we evaluate the actions and behavior of people we must look at the motives, as best we can determine them. When the motives seem unclear or confusing we can look outside the circumstances to a broader cause or reason. It is always circumspect when people scream, call others nasty names, change the subject, use flawed logic or run away from the issue. That’s when we must question their motives. If these same people refuse to discuss logically the reason for their ideas, thoughts, values, behavior and actions, it is time to stop talking to them.

Why is it Important to reevaluate The Geneva Conventions?

The Geneva Conventions document was written specifically to address the issue of prisoners of war and their status in a conventional war. It was a civilized and appropriate document for its time. However, it applied only to conventional warfare in which armies were dressed in military uniforms and fought in the open—one side against another in a declared war.

The Iraqi war has changed the way men of opposite ideas fight each other. The terrorists’ purpose is to deliberately kill civilians and cause havoc. The terrorist does not value life in principle. The sole intent of these terrorists is to wipe out the American way of life. Their purpose is to destroy democracy and freedom—the foundations of a civilized life. Human life is not sacrosanct for them—anyone’s life, the enemy’s or even their own.

We act on the principle that even the terrorists have a right to live a life of their choosing. We do not force people to behave contrary to their wishes. We are fighting in Iraq for everyone’s freedom. The terrorists are fighting to deny freedom to all.

The Geneva Conventions must be clarified to define terrorists outside the concept of prisoner of war protection. We must re-codify in what way terrorists can be held incommunicado and how they can be tortured during interrogation. The Conventions must include some carefully written steps that would legally and morally allow men of honor to obtain information that will protect us from the chaos inflicted by terrorists. As Mr. Holzer clearly states: “…(torture) in defense of legitimate self-preservation … is a moral imperative.”

This is the kind of morality to which noble men aspire. The next time you see the mutilated body of an 18 year-old U.S. Marine carried to his grave—the victim of a terrorist bomb—or watch his parents weep at his coffin, think carefully about whether you want these terrorist sipping tea at Guantanamo after a nap in the sun—while plotting the ruination for the rest of the world.

The article was written February 4, 2005.