Torture: In Vietnam the Commander in Chief said: "No"
We were required to keep this card on our person at all times. To ensure that no local commander could countermand these instructions, the card was signed by the Commander in Chief, President Lyndon Baines Johnson.
Did a card signed by the president work as perfect prophylaxis against abuse? Certainly not.
But it ensured that none of us could hide behind any ambiguity in American policy on torture and abuse. Prisoner abuse occurred, and, for the most part, abusers were punished under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Perhaps it is time for all Americans to look into this mirror of our former selves.
Do we really believe that the world has changed so much that we do not want our young men and women in Iraq to abide by the principles on that card we all carried in an earlier American war?
Here is what it said on the front and back of that card signed by the Commander in Chief:
The Enemy In Your Hands
As a member of the U.S. Military Forces, you will comply with the Geneva Prisoner of War Conventions of 1949 to which your country adheres. Under these conventions:
You Can And You Will
Disarm your prisoner
Immediately search him thoroughly
Require him to be silent
Segregate him from other prisoners
Guard him carefully
You Cannot And Must Not
Mistreat your prisoner
Humiliate or degrade him
Take any of his personal effects which do not have significant military value
Refuse him medical treatment if required and available
1. Handle Him Firmly, Promptly, but Humanely
The captive in your hands must be disarmed, searched, secured, and watched. But he must also be treated at all times as a human being. He must not be tortured, killed, mutilated, or degraded, even if he refuses to talk. If the captive is a woman, treat her with all respect due her sex.
2. Take The Captive Quickly To Security
As soon as possible evacuate the captive to a place of safety and interrogation designated by your commander. Military documents taken from the captive are also sent to the interrogators, but the captive will keep his personal equipment except weapons.
3. Mistreatment Of Any Captive Is A Criminal Offense.
Every Soldier Is Personally Responsible For The Enemy In His Hands
It is both dishonorable and foolish to mistreat a captive. It is also a punishable offense. Not even a beaten enemy will surrender if he knows his captors will torture or kill him. He will resist and make his capture more costly. Fair treatment of captives encourages the enemy to surrender.
4. Treat The Sick And Wounded Captive As Best You Can
The captive saved may be an intelligence source. In any case he is a human being and must be treated like one. The soldier who ignores the sick and wounded degrades his uniform.
5. All Persons In Your Hands, Whether Suspects, Civilians, Or Combat Captives, Must Be Protected Against Violence, Insults, Curiousity, and Reprisals Of Any Kind
Leave punishment to the courts and judges. The soldier shows his strength by his fairness, firmness, and humanity to the persons in his hands.
John Stuart Blackton
Absotively posolutely right on! Especially points 3 & 5.
We would do well as a country to show our "strength by our fairness, firmness and humanity".
The fact that we even need to have a debate on the issue of treatment of prisoners held by the US is a national disgrace.
I recommend that all TPM readers forward a copy of this to your elected representatives along with your comments.
Kudos go to Mr. Blackton for reminding us how far we have travelled down this particular slippery slope...wknjh
December 7, 2005 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, JSB - I did not know about this, but I am proud of it, and look forward to a commander-in-chief who will sign his name to the next generation of cards without dissembling or watering it down.
December 7, 2005 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a great document and one we can all be proud of, but let me ask you a question, John Stuart Blackton.
You're a vet. You remember those couple of sociopaths in the platoon; you know, the ones who shot first and asked questions later; the ones that humped the point; you know, the ones who saved the rest of your sorry asses. Did they read it?
December 7, 2005 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen asks if I remember the guys who did what good 11 Bravos do - guys who humped the point.
I understand the intent of her sarcasm. Ellen is chiding me that "Rules are all very well, John, but war is Kinetic".
Well, Ellen, the answer is yes to your questions and no to your point.
When PFC Bronowski was on point he might well "shoot first and ask questions later" --- although the most likely thing that PFC Bronowski would do is give us a hand signal to drop to the ground and shut up ---- since blasting a few rounds into the bush might draw fire from an enemy who outnumbered us 5 to 1.
But, to move away from war stories, there is an important point to be made.
The "American way of war" is not some Quaker, pussyfoot notion. You "advance to the sound of gunfire", you "engage and overwhelm", you shoot to kill.
BUT.... and this is very important..... you fight to win within the context of a civilized nation's warfighting rules.
As I have gone on about at length in an earlier post, we are heirs to a 1500 year legacy of Just War Theory that began in Roman North Africa with Augustine.
The tenets of "right conduct in war", what the church calls Jus in Bello have shaped Western norms of war, international laws about war, and the Geneva Connvenstions which we used to take seriously in the pre-W era.
I am curious, Ellen, about your use of the word sociopaths to describe the ground-pounders. Is that how you think I (as a presumably educated liberal) thought about my guys? In three tours of duty in Indochina I had funny guys, sad guys, smart guys, dumb guys, savvy guys, out-of-it guys, and all sort of other personalities, but I don't think I ever had a sociopath.
I knew a few. Some older special ops guys in the 1960s (particularly SEALS at the E7, E8 level) seem to have been recruited right off the docks in Oakland or Galveston. Tough, mean, street-fighters who probably met at least some of what a nice white-coated clinicial would call sociopath.
But most every-day 11B infantrymen were as sane as you or I.
I hope that I have responded substantively to your question, Ellen.
John Stuart Blackton
December 8, 2005 7:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
In three tours of duty in Indochina I . . . don't think I ever had a sociopath. John Stuart Blackton
In war they're often quite hard to identify; they tend to blend in so very well.
December 8, 2005 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
FOREIGNCOMMENTERID: 1091
AUTHOR: Clem Yeobright
DATE: 12/08/2005 01:45:06 PM
December 8, 2005 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
As far as the current situation, Condi "mushroom cloud" Rice deservedly has zero credibilty with the world community.
December 9, 2005 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
And against the Midianites Gideon had with him 32,000 people, and he spoke with God, and God said those that are fearful and afraid send away and there were 22,000 sent away and of the 10,000 remaining God said of those that lappeth the water like dogs shall you take and they were 300 against the Midianites.
300/32,000; about 1%; God knew his sociopaths.
December 10, 2005 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink