38 Retired Military Leaders Against Torture

When the news came out that Gen (retired) Colin Powell was backing Sen. McCain on pushing back against Bush's proposed torture legislation, I'm surprised that the media seems to have overlooked this letter from 38 other military leaders, including two former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - Generals John Shalikasvili and John Vessey. The letter is here:

Dear Chairman Warner and Senator Levin:

As retired military leaders of the U.S. Armed Forces and former officials of the Department of Defense, we write to express our profound concern about a key provision of S. 3861, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, introduced last week at the behest of the President. We believe that the language that would redefine Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions as equivalent to the standards contained in the Detainee Treatment Act violates the core principles of the Geneva Conventions and poses a grave threat to American service-members, now and in future wars.

We supported your efforts last year to clarify that all detainees in U.S. custody must be treated humanely. That was particularly important, because the Administration determined that it was notbound by the basic humane treatment standards contained in Geneva Common Article 3. Now that the Supreme Court has made clear that treatment of al Qaeda prisoners is governed by the GenevaConvention standards, the Administration is seeking to redefine Common Article 3, so as to downgrade those standards. We urge you to reject this effort.
----------------
As the United States has greater exposure militarily than any other nation, we have long emphasized the reciprocal nature of the Geneva Conventions. That is why we believe – and the United States has always asserted -- that a broad interpretation of Common Article 3 is vital to the safety of U.S. personnel. But the Administration’s bill would put us on the opposite side of that argument. We urge you to consider the impact that redefining Common Article 3 would have on Americans who put their lives at risk in defense of our Nation. We believe their interests, and their safety and protection should they become prisoners, should be your highest priority as you address this issue.

Greg Djerejian also has a copy of the Vessey letter to McCain spelling it out to anyone who doesn't get why ignoring the Geneva Convention is a bad idea - not just for potential captured American soldiers but also as a general point of morality.

In 1950, three years after the creation of the Department of Defense, the then Secretary of Defense, General George C. Marshall, issued a small book, titled The Armed Forces Officer. The book summarized the laws and traditions that governed our Armed Forces through the years. As the Senate deals with the issue, it might consider a short quote from the last chapter of that book which General Marshall sent to every American Officer. The last chapter is titled "Americans in Combat" and it lists 29 general propositions which govern the general conduct of Americans in war.

Read the short letter. Every military person should read it, and certainly every officer should be familiar with it. You can also listen to General Vessey on NPR as he explains why he wrote the letter. So when people attack retired military leaders who criticize what the executive branch is doing, ask them: why did the White House muscle the three service JAGs into signing off on the Bush proposed language? Because it's easier to get active duty officers to fall in line with their political boss - it's what we're conditioned to do. Retired officers can actually speak their conscience.

Comments

[Maxtrue]

The following is a post from Centerfield by Bobby in response to a question concerning the Powell/McCain position. It is clear that the GC was designed for legal combatants and civilians, not terrorists. Anyway,

"Mathew,

I don't know if I understand what you're asking, and there's a lot of hyperbole being thrown out here-- for starters, there's lots of "military leaders" who want to throw out the Geneva Convention book in the GWOT, not just "those who have never spent a day in uniform"-- and I'll talk about those military leaders in a moment (though I won't refer to any by name out of respect for their privacy). Part of the reason that you're probably not aware of this internal conflict is that the military-- unlike State or the CIA, for example-- prefer to fight our battles privately, and not to undermine the civilian leadership by leaking to the press when things don't go our way. But then, the military has always been the government's most professional bureaucracy by far, the others just don't want to believe that. I'm just bringing that up because it bugs me when people try to cast this as "those who know oppose it" and "those who don't know support it" when the truth is always far more nuanced than that-- there are "those who know who oppose it" and there are "those who know who support it," just as there are "those who don't know who support it" and "those who don't know who oppose it." (And "it" refers to re-interpreting the Geneva Convention protections).

All that said, it's important to note that, at least as we studied military ethics at West Point, Geneva Convention protections have never morally applied to illegal combatants-- that is (at least historically) combatants who were captured out of uniform were generally shot on sight, many after being beaten and tortured, and Geneva didn't prohibit that (perhaps because it wants to encourage "legitimate"-- which is to say, Western-style-- warfare, and one such way is to penalize illegal combatants). Geneva Convention protections only extended to lawful combatants-- soldiers, wearing a clearly recognizable uniform, in service to their state. Strictly speaking, the detainees have almost universally been illegal combatants. Now I believe the Supreme Court has recently held that the Geneva Conventions do apply to the detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere (maybe Pat or Simon can comment on that) and, if so, that would be the law of the land (perhaps prompting the Administation's desire to re-write the law), but prior to that ruling, looking strictly at academic jus en bello theory, it wasn't the case.

But it was always based on reciprocity-- if either state violated Just War protections of the other side, then their claim to such protections for their own people was always considered invalid, and generally transformed the viciousness of the conflict. I mention this because when you ask, "If we re-interpret or modify the intent of the Geneva Conventions agreement why wouldn't our enemies do the same?" I think it's important to remember that our enemies (at least the ones we're fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, the Philippines, and elsewhere) DON'T honor Geneva Convention agreements-- a Soldier captured by the jihadists will almost invariably turn up dead, usually executed in a very brutal manner, and after having been subjected to humiliating torture (far worse than anything our side might have been done) that is generally broadcast and disseminated to the world (itself a violation). This is where many of the military leaders who support the Geneva re-interpretation come in-- not only do they believe the jihadists have forefeited the right to GC protections because they are illegal combatants, even if they donned uniforms and became legal combatants, they still wouldn't be entitled to the protections because they're not honoring reciprocity. I should note here that I don't necessarily agree with them-- I think that even if the jihadists are not morally entitled to GC protections, we need to provide it to them anyway because of the importance of winning the battle of perception (both at home, in Iraq, and abroad), which is what Colin Powell (who I don't always agree with) refers to in the discussion you cite. But I do want to represent their positions accurately (or as accurately as I can) since you're asking someone to help you out in understanding them, and I know they won't stop by here themselves.

I do think there's a slippery-slope argument when people say that if we throw out the GC protections book on the jihadists that future conflicts with other countries will also throw out the protections as well. This neglects years of military history experience, including many in the same conflict, where enemies have demonstrated that they don't follow some blind dictate, but rather reach an understanding about who they're fighting and modify their behavior accordingly. For example, in World War II, Americans and Germans were relatively civil to one another in battle and in captivity; by contrast, the American/Japanese theater was marked with horrific brutality and tortures and that was surpassed only by the German/Russian front, where the brutality reached epic proportions (for 20th century Europeans, mind you-- they had nothing on, say, the Aztecs who were eating their captives, or even modern day African rebels who chop off the arms of captives and civilians because they think it's funny). This disparity occurred because of the principle of reciprocity-- Americans and Germans believed that the other side would respect their prisoners, and so they treated their own prisoners with relative respect; by contrast, Americans and Japanese were convinced that torture would be the norm in their conflict, as did Germans and Russians in theirs. If either side in either conflict had behaved otherwise (i.e., if Americans started rounding up German prisoners and turning them into human decorations, a la Pol Pot in Cambodia), you can rest assured that the civility would have collapsed as reciprocity would have been violated. Thus if we ever did go to war with, say, Finland or Mongolia, the Geneva Conventions wouldn't necessarily be "thrown out" just because we may decide to not to grant them to the jihadists or even to Singapore or Canada."

Posted by: Bobby at September 19, 2006 02:51 PM

[J.]

This is a bullshit argument, Maxtrue. Let me start out by correcting one major issue - there's more than one Geneva Convention. The Third Geneva Convention was focused on prisoners of war, which is what you're referring to. The Fourth Geneva Convention addresses noncombatants, specifically a term they use "protected people." And if you grab a guy off the street because someone else said "hey, he's a terrorist," and you don't charge him with any crimes and throw him in a dark cage for five years, well, that's probably a violation of basic human rights in addition to the Geneva Conventions. If you capture a guy in or out of uniform who's got a gun and he was intent on trying to kill you, that's a combatant.

I understand that the GC was directed toward military professionals in uniform, and there's a long history why that's true. Not going to get into that here, for brevity's sake. But I won't let this bullshit of "many military leaders want to re-interpret the GCs because of the lack of reciprocity" go unchallenged. I see thirty-eight signatures on this letter, not including Collin Powell, who say it's really bad for our moral fiber as well as our national will that we ought not detain and torture alleged "terrorists." That's what's going on right now. Until I see names and quotes of those "military leaders" who want to see the GC reversed, then I think this is just right-wing bullshit.

And Bobby's last point? Well, I'm not worried about Finland. But China, Egypt, any nation in Africa or South America? I really, really want to make sure those nations understand the GC and how to treat American soldiers if we go to war against them. And we're failing to make the case that we ought to be treated any differently than the guys in Gitmo - and overseas CIA prisons - right now.

BTW I am a "registered" Independent also...

[Belphegor1527]

I'm a bit skeptical of Bobby's military credentials. I'm not sure what they teach at West Point but I can say in my 14 years (and counting) in the Army and having more 'Law of War' briefings and training than I can remember that that interpretation of the Geneva Conventions is just plain wrong and absolutly NOT what is taught to U.S. soldiers.

The Geneva Conventions do NOT require combatants to wear uniforms. There are special criteria to cover insurgents and combatants that are not part of a national military. They are treated somewhat differently but they are still afforded protections.

While reciprocity is one of the foundations of why the Geneva Conventions were written there's nothing in them that says 'If you don't play by the rules, we don't play by the rules'. As far as I know signatories are required to comply regardless of the actions of other combatants.

The real concern is that nations across the world will see us tinkering with the Conventions and then figure "What the heck...let's change our interpretation of them as well."

One of the reasons I serve in the military is because we hold ourselves to high standards and try to operate in ways that are consistant with our values. I also honestly believe that there's no reason we can't win a war - any war - while holding true to our principals.

When people raise this 'we should torture them' nonsense I always tell them "I'm a soldier, I don't rape women, I don't kill babies and I don't torture people. If you want someone who can fill that job description there's someone on trial in Baghdad who might be your kind of guy."

[Maxtrue]

http://www.centristcoalition.com/blog/archives/003504.html> Perhaps I should have posted the entire thread not leaving out the context of Bobby's comments Feel free to scan the thread and follow the link in Pat's post to "Stubborn Facts". This secondary thread discusses the Supreme Court ruling.

I do believe there is real credibility behind some comments you might find (mine excluded). They come from a "centrist" zone and have a valid but different take on this topic.

[dK]

This post, and it's links, are intimidating to me. They make me realize how, with my self-imposed avoidance of much of the news and commentary over the past six months, I've lost track of salient issues in the debate over torture and this detestable war. Thanks for the great analysis.

[Belphegor1527]

Just to be on the up and up...
I posted my comments above on the Centrist site listed by Maxtrue. Bobby responded and did call me out on some factual errors I made in my statement.

Danm I hate being wrong!

[Maxtrue]

Below are two follow-ups from Centerfield cross-posted in response to Bepheqor:

"If you'll go to the text of the GC that I linked to above, you'll see that while there are some special rules on uniforms for members of a "resistance", those do not apply to insurgents like the al Qaeda members in Iraq. Except those resistance fighters, who still have an obligation to put on some kind of uniform as soon as possible, lawful combatants are indeed required to wear a uniform if they want to be entitled to the protections. Non-uniformed combatants are spies or terrorists, not soldiers, and they are not protected, except perhaps by the limited rules of common article 3.

So instead of insinuating personal insults at one of our posters, perhaps you could back up your criticism with citations to specific language supporting your point.

Also, how do YOU define "torture"?"

Posted by: PatHMV at September 20, 2006 10:46 PM

"Belphegor,

I'm a bit skeptical of Bobby's military credentials.
I'm a bit skeptical, too! Let's make him produce the secret handshake!

The Geneva Conventions do NOT require combatants to wear uniforms. There are special criteria to cover insurgents and combatants that are not part of a national military. They are treated somewhat differently but they are still afforded protections.
No, you're wrong there. In fact, they DO require combatants to wear uniforms. Although there is an exception for insurgents who still must wear a "fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance." The insurgents in Iraq don't wear such a thing. Pat already answered the mail, though, on what protections illegal combatants are entitled to.

While reciprocity is one of the foundations of why the Geneva Conventions were written there's nothing in them that says 'If you don't play by the rules, we don't play by the rules'. As far as I know signatories are required to comply regardless of the actions of other combatants.
Surprisingly, "as far as [you] know" turns out to be just plain wrong. Article 2 states: "Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof." (italics added for emphasis). That is, you're bound and obligated so long as the non-signatory party agrees to comply with the GC-- the Iraqi insurgents are non-signatories and they don't comply with the Geneva Convention, and thus we're not legally bound to give them GC protections (although I think we should, anyway, just from a public diplomacy / information operations perspective). This is somewhat similar to "protected sites" or civilians losing their protected status when combatants use them for a military purpose-- we're no longer legally bound to respect their protection, although we should still try to do so to the greatest extent possible, and we always do.

One of the reasons I serve in the military is because we hold ourselves to high standards and try to operate in ways that are consistant with our values. I also honestly believe that there's no reason we can't win a war - any war - while holding true to our principals.
It's principles, but other than that, I actually agree with you. Not that it has any relation to your previous argument, though.

When people raise this 'we should torture them' nonsense I always tell them "I'm a soldier, I don't rape women, I don't kill babies and I don't torture people. If you want someone who can fill that job description there's someone on trial in Baghdad who might be your kind of guy."
That's a great sound bite, but it's also a straw man. No one here is arguing that we should "rape women" or "kill babies," and you're introducing it to try and make an invalid point valid. The real question is what constitutes "torture"-- is it electroshock therapy or leaving off the air conditioner? Is it making people crouch in a bamboo cage or making them sleep on the floor? How do we tell our military personnel and intelligence operatives that they can't "torture" if we don't clearly define what constitutes "torture"? Unfortunately, the Geneva Convention is rather vague on what does or does not constitute "torture."

This is something we owe our military leaders so that they can apply the clear and appropriate standard to guide our interrogators, and to ensure that our servicemen (and women) are acting in accordance with the will and desire of the American people. Otherwise, what Amnesty International calls a "gulag," a refugee in the Sudan calls "paradise," and it become-- like so many things-- a matter of perspective."

Posted by: Bobby at September 21, 2006 03:12 AM

Both posters have substantial credentials (law and military).

[Maxtrue]

There are quotes from Belphegor in Bobby's response. Because they are not in qu0tation marks or their orginal italics (lost in translation) it may be hard to understand whose said what. Simply compare B's earlier post or visit Centerfield.

I suggest JT may want to test his logic at "Stubborn Facts" or Centerfield and discuss topics with others who rant a bit less than myself. Run that line, "Democrats can't do worse than Republicans" past a gritty guy named Tully. His credentials are sound too. And Pat is no slouch either. The experiance might up the discourse.

And I do not regard myself as a Republican though some Democrats insist I am (and Lieberman too.) I believe Bobby and others at Centerfield prefer the middle.

[J.]

Maxtrue - suggest you see this excellent post at LGM. Point is, the GC and similar laws were made deliberately vague so that people would not say, "Well the GC didn't say no hot bricks on the soles of the feet, just no hot irons." You don't want people to game the system when it comes to torture, humiliation and degrading behavior. And as for the NSA chief's comment of "well, humiliation depends on the culture," that's BS. I'm sure that any one of us would recognize degrading behavior if we were under that treatment - and that's why the Army field manual is listing what's "allowed" in interrogations as opposed to trying to list what's "not allowed." If you would be unwilling to use a particular treatment on your neighbor, then odds are that's humiliating or torture techniques.

[Retired Army Guy]

A quote from the U.S. Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence last week:

"No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the past five years, hard years, tells us that. And, moreover, any piece of intelligence which is obtained under duress, through the use of abusive techniques, would be of questionable credibility, and additionally it would do more harm than good when it inevitably became known that abusive practices were used. And we can't afford to go there. Some of our most significant successes on the battlefield have been—in fact, I would say all of them, almost categorically all of them, have accrued from expert interrogators using mixtures of humane interrogation practices, in clever ways that you would hope Americans would use them, to push the envelope within the bookends of legal, moral and ethical, now as further refined by this field manual. So we don't need abusive practices in there."

Q.E.D.