Is the United States a rogue state?

[buttmunch]

"The United States is committed to the world-wide elimination of torture," George W. Bush explained in a June 2003 speech, "and we are leading this fight by example." Oh, the irony!

Intriguingly, at the time he seemed to have a good grasp of the relevant issues. "Freedom from torture," he said, "is an inalienable human right." True. "The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, ratified by the United States and more than 130 other countries since 1984, forbids governments from deliberately inflicting severe physical or mental pain or suffering on those within their custody or control." Also true. And lastly, a straightforward recognition of who the torturers of the world are, and why they do it: "Yet torture continues to be practiced around the world by rogue regimes whose cruel methods match their determination to crush the human spirit."

Last week, we learned that among those spirit-crushing rogue regimes was the government of the United States of America, which is now "leading by example" in the field of hair-splitting and wink-nod authorizations of torture. Thanks to the recent "compromise" between the hard-core torturers in the Bush administration and "moderate" Republican torture opponents, we continue to live in a country that does not officially endorse the infliction of "severe pain." That would be torture, you see. "Serious pain," however, is fine. That's merely cruel and degrading treatment. (The president used to be against that, too, but, well, things change.)

The interesting thing, as David Luban points out, is that the compromise defines "serious pain" as "bodily injury that involves … extreme physical pain," so the ultimate significance of this distinction between serious and severe might be called into question. More to the point, the law simply shreds the very concept of law, as Jack Balkin explained with this rundown of the components:
Eliminating the writ of habeas corpus, denying anyone the right to invoke rights guaranteed by Geneva in judicial actions, prohibiting the use of any foreign sources in construing the meaning of the Geneva Conventions, proclaiming that the president is the authoritative source of the meaning of Geneva with respect to the War Crimes statute, amending the War Crimes statute with language that allows the president to continue to engage in torture-lite (after all, he is now the authoritative source of its meaning), and finally, making all these amendments retroactive to November 26, 1997.
Other countries, of course, practice torture in violation of international law. As has now been clear for a while, we have been in their company for some years. The latest twist, however, is that we now won't show any shame about it. Rather than simply violating the laws to which we have agreed to adhere, we're repudiating them, simply denying that the standard by which civilized nations operate apply to us.

The problems here will be widespread. One of the strengths of democracies on the international scene is precisely that it's much harder for liberal states to violate agreements. Dictatorships can say one thing and do another with ease. Democracies feature free presses, free speech, the rule of law, independent judiciaries, legislative oversight, and other measures to ensure that laws and treaties are followed. This is, to the conservative mind, a weakness. In their view, cheating is a good thing, and America's historical difficulty in cheating constitutes a problem. They're dead wrong. Cooperation is a good thing — the best ticket to prosperity, security, and international peace. Democracies can cooperate with other countries — and especially with other democracies — more credibly and effectively, and that's one of the reasons the world's democratic block is so much stronger and more prosperous than the rest of the world.

But the rule of law is now off the table as far as Bush is concerned. What's more, insofar as national-security policy is at issue, the United States increasingly doesn't look like much of a democracy. As the congressional Republicans march in lockstep behind the White House's torture agenda, they don't even know what that agenda's composed of. The Boston Globe reported Saturday that 90 percent of members of Congress don't know "which interrogation techniques have been used in the past, and none of them know which ones would be permissible under proposed changes to the War Crimes Act." Which is just to say that, in practice, absolutely everything would be permitted, since the only people capable of overseeing the interrogation program haven't done it, won't do it, and have no intention of doing it in the future.

Consequently, the United States now presents itself as what amounts to the globe's largest and most powerful rogue state — a nuclear-armed superpower capable of projecting military force to the furthest corners of the earth, acting utterly without legal or moral constraint whenever the president proclaims it necessary. The idea that striking such a posture on the world stage will serve our long-term interests is daft. American power has, for decades, rested crucially on the sense that the United States can be trusted and relied upon, on the belief that we use our power primarily to defend the community of liberal states and the liberal rules by which they conduct themselves rather than to undermine them.

An America prepared to casually toss out the most fundamental principles of international humanitarian diplomacy, along with basic human decency and the rule of law as side helpings, is not a country others are going to want to cooperate with. It will constitute a threat to their own interests and values. Nor will it be a country blessed with a lot of accurate intelligence. As Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky has pointed out, an intelligence service shot-through with demands that it torture people "degenerates into a playground for sadists," the service itself "an army of butchers" skilled at terrorizing its victims but hardly capable of unraveling complicated investigations.

It's a grim future brought to us by grim and deranged men — by people who seem to have developed an unhealthy level of admiration for America's enemies. (They want the country they run to transform itself into a facsimile of its evil adversaries.) It's a future in which it may become increasingly hard for decent citizens of this country to say truthfully that they're proud to be Americans.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n2044350.shtml

[sputnik]

An America prepared to casually toss out the most fundamental principles of international humanitarian diplomacy, along with basic human decency and the rule of law as side helpings, is not a country others are going to want to cooperate with.

nor does it give america any credibility when it claims to be leading the fight of good against evil, democracy, freedom and rule of law against terrorism and repressive authoritarian regimes. can you say double standard?

[Sojiita]

I think calling the US a 'rogue state' is going a bit far.

[buttmunch]

I lifted the thread title from the title of the article, so I guess CBS is posing a rather provocative rhetorical question. Go to the link, though, and read the viewer mail on this one. I was quite surprised at which way the wind was blowing.

[sputnik]

rogue state: "a state that does not respect other states in its international actions." (wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn)

it fits the definition though. a rogue state is one that disregards international law and does what it wants to suit its own national interests.
the US attacked a country to go after a state-less crime (9/11), started an war that is unjustifiable in any legal sense (iraq) despite outcry from most of its allies, disregards basic human rights covenants to which it is party and therefore obligated to respect, and does not cooperate with the human rights mechanisms and inspections to which it is also bound by law. need i mention guantanamo?

[pacific breeze]

^^Sounds like it fits the definition. I find that terribly sad.

It's not on the same level as say, Syria, but it deported a Canadian citizen to Syria, knowing full well that the non-terrorist would be tortured, which he was. Of course, the incompetent asshats in Ottawa (cops and diplomats) sat by and watched, but the U.S. did the deed.

And then there's Guantanomo Bay where hundreds of people who haven't been charged with anything are locked up in inhumane conditions. Hello?

[Grimmlok]

If habeas corpus has been eliminated for US citizens and anybody else, and if the 'president' can, at will, decide what torture is and who is a threat, AND pre-pardon himself from any future prosecution then you live in a fascist state devoid of human rights.

Sorry, but that's just how it is. You're a rogue state armed to the teeth with a habit of being incredibly violent.

[Sojiita]

Well the US gov't did have allies (alot) with Afghanistan and some allies(less though) with Iraq. Also the ways in which the US gov't has been flouting international law are rather cloudy and in a here-and-there manner. by that definition used I think many, many states could be classified as 'rogue states'-thereby reducing the effectiveness of the term. the US defies international law in a few instances-but overall follows international law. Also I do not consider Afghanistan to have really been 'a state' in the traditional sense. Also as repulsive as guantanamo is..the Geneva Convention is a bit outdated considering the proliferation of non-state agressors since World War Two-don;t you think it may need some updating or at least considering a possible revision is not such a bad idea? Is every international agreement that is made not subject to change in a changing world?

Not trying to be a flag-waving US nutcase here but I think given the standards the US is being held to in some areas that a hell of alot of other nations(possibly Great Britain even) would qualify. But I don't see any threads about any other country showing up on the World Politics section.

Originally Posted by Grimmlok

If habeas corpus has been eliminated for US citizens and anybody else, and if the 'president' can, at will, decide what torture is and who is a threat, AND pre-pardon himself from any future prosecution then you live in a fascist state devoid of human rights.

Sorry, but that's just how it is. You're a rogue state armed to the teeth with a habit of being incredibly violent.

Sorry, but that is just NOT how it is. I do not consider the US to be a 'rogue state'(but can see how you can consider it that though) and to say this country is 'devoid of human rights' is ridiculous hyperbole Grimm. C'mon you are smarter than that!

[Grimmlok]

Um, this is in regards to the rather new development of the US being a rogue state that actively promotes torture and eliminates human rights.

Wtf does fingerpointing at any other nation have to do with that fact?

"They do it too!" Is NOT an excuse.

[Sojiita]

Originally Posted by pacific breeze

^^Sounds like it fits the definition. I find that terribly sad.

It's not on the same level as say, Syria, but it deported a Canadian citizen to Syria, knowing full well that the non-terrorist would be tortured, which he was. Of course, the incompetent asshats in Ottawa (cops and diplomats) sat by and watched, but the U.S. did the deed.

And then there's Guantanomo Bay where hundreds of people who haven't been charged with anything are locked up in inhumane conditions. Hello?

It's not on the same level as say, Syria-agreed so using the term 'rogue state' cheapens the term.

hundreds of people who haven't been charged with anything are locked up in inhumane conditions.-do you realize how many nations have these very conditions? If this is the standard then most of Africa, Russia, most of the middle east, much of South America..hell most nations on earth are therefore rogue states right? I understand that the US is more powerful and has a higher profile and all, but fair is fair right?

[Grimmlok]

Again, saying "They do it too!" is not an excuse, nor does it diminish the term.

[Sojiita]

Originally Posted by Grimmlok

Um, this is in regards to the rather new development of the US being a rogue state that actively promotes torture and eliminates human rights.

Wtf does fingerpointing at any other nation have to do with that fact?

"They do it too!" Is NOT an excuse.

devoid of human rights.
actively promotes torture
eliminates human rights.
^^ I do not consider these broad blanket statements to be true. Also I am not saying it is ok that we do things cause others do too..I am saying why fignerpoint at the US and not include the others. We are not ok cause they are bad-but it is also true that we are not the only ones who are doing some of these things so why only mention us?

[Grimmlok]

Devoid of human rights: habeus corpus being eliminated for US citizens and those scooped up in the hysteria of 'terrorism fighting', indefinite detention, no legal recourse, and subjected to torture.

Actively promotes torture: new policy actively sets out, as noted above, to make torture an accepted part of interrogation and detention with all agents and personell included in said actions excused from any prosecution.

Why mention you? BECAUSE ITS A BRAND NEW BILL GOING THROUGH YOUR SENATE. That's the topic at hand. Why does it matter if everyone else on the planet eats babies or fucks pigeons., if the US prides itself on being 'the beacon of light on the hill' and then joins the rest of the muckymucck dictatorships does that somehow take away the hypocrisy?

[Sojiita]

Originally Posted by Grimmlok

Again, saying "They do it too!" is not an excuse, nor does it diminish the term.

So what is your excuse for turning a blind eye to the torture, murder, false imprisonment that is going on in other places of the world? I don't see you posting anything about Saudi Arabia or The Sudan or Sri Lanka? What about Brazilian prisoners? What about human rights abuses in China(executes more people than any other nation)? What about the unstable horrors that are Iran(about to get nukes) and North Korea(already has them)? Seems like the people who suffer from the actions of nations other than the US are just not worthy of the attention?
Also regarding "Again, saying "They do it too!" is not an excuse"-I am not saying that-and don't put words into my mouth please. It is beneath you.

[Grimmlok]

Because the topic at hand is the bill going through your government. Again, what everyone else does is irrelevant to said topic.

It's just a cheap tactic to spread the blame around and yes, lots of other crazy ass nations engage in this behavior as well.

They are not the topic at hand, and they also don't pretend to be the foremost leader in democracy, human rights and all that other ballyhoo.