Ex Post Facto
Mark McGwire hardly surprised anyone when he was caught with amphetamines. Sammy Sosa made steroid use a laughing stock when his "corked" back shattered. And there weren't too many people, myself included, who didn't want to mark Barry's 756th home run ball with an asterisk and send it to Cooperstown branded. And just this week, Manny Ramirez received a fifty game suspension for the use of "performance-enhancing drugs", but this time, I'm batting for the other team.
I'll admit I was ecstatic when I heard the news. The L.A. Dodgers, the team who, in their infinite wisdom, structured their entire organization around this one player, seemed to be out of commission until July. I burst into fits of laughter when I heard Ramirez' story: "My doctor gave me some pills for a personal problem I'm having and we didn't know they were against the rules". Well played, Manny, well played.
But today, when I opened my Sunday New York Times, the laughing stopped. It turns out, Manny didn't test positive for any performance-enhancing drugs. He tested positive for human chorionic gonadotropin (H.C.G) which is usually given as a fertility treatment for women, but can be used to generate testosterone in men, after they have stopped using steroids. The audacity of Major League Baseball to suspend a player on the suspicion that he may have used drugs, in the past, is absolutely ludicrous.
Imagine your doctor prescribed you a pain killer, let's say Vicodin. You take this pill and feel better; congratulations. Three years later, Congress passes a bill that says Vicodin is illegal and it comes out that you took the pill 3 years ago. Should you go to jail? No. That's why we have ex post facto laws in the United States: to prevent people from being punished for something they couldn't have known was wrong at the time.
Assuming Manny took steroids, there's no way to know that wasn't before Major League Baseball had banned and began testing for them. In fact, his use of H.C.G. is striking proof that he is not using steroids any more. Even so, my analogy is somewhat overreaching. MLB can't even prove Ramirez was using steroids prior to taking H.C.G. Suspending a player for almost a third of the season based on ultimately no evidence whatsoever constitutes the epitome of stupidity and puts a major failure on an otherwise successful program.
I'm sorry Mr. Selig, you got this one wrong.
10 May 2009
06 May 2009
The Unanswered Question
Weeks ago, the Obama administration made the controversial decision to release legal memorandums from the Bush administration Justice Department allowing for the use of harsh interrogation techniques including waterboarding and wall-slamming by the CIA. Since then, the New York Times and several other major newspapers have devoted a substantial amount of time and effort to detail every aspect of the unfolding drama. In fact, the New York Times reported today that an internal Justice Department inquiry released a 220-page draft report on the illegality of the techniques used, with recommendations for disciplinary action. The question that's getting lost, however, in the hurry to metaphorically "spank" those responsible, is where the line between acceptable and unacceptable interrogation methods is drawn.
International law provides no reprieve. The Third Geneva Convention (relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War) is excessively vague insofar as it allows for semantic arguments. It reads,
"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."
At face value, the treaty seems very straight-forward; at face value, it mandates that countries treat prisoners of war with humane respect. And yet individual countries are able to create loopholes with exclusionary interpretation of words like “torture”, “coercion” (see “enhanced interrogation techniques”), and “prisoner of war” (see “enemy combatant”). Even assuming this sort of action could be monitored or tracked, there remains no enforcement mechanism for the Geneva Conventions. There’s ultimately no consequence for countries that have signed the Conventions and continue to ignore their mandates.
Perhaps the point of the incessant focus on past actions is the result of a need to clean our record here at home before solving torture abroad. But central to that solution is a clarification of what does and does not constitute torture, what is and is not allowed under the 1950 agreement. In concert with their actions to investigate the actions of and potentially prosecute Bush Justice Department officials, President Obama should issue a statement ensuring the nation that his administration will stick to the letter of the law, as dictated by the Geneva Convention, concerning the torture of prisoners of war. Only after such a clarification can the U.S. legally proceed with its efforts to revitalize its image and restore order to the international community.
International law provides no reprieve. The Third Geneva Convention (relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War) is excessively vague insofar as it allows for semantic arguments. It reads,
"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."
At face value, the treaty seems very straight-forward; at face value, it mandates that countries treat prisoners of war with humane respect. And yet individual countries are able to create loopholes with exclusionary interpretation of words like “torture”, “coercion” (see “enhanced interrogation techniques”), and “prisoner of war” (see “enemy combatant”). Even assuming this sort of action could be monitored or tracked, there remains no enforcement mechanism for the Geneva Conventions. There’s ultimately no consequence for countries that have signed the Conventions and continue to ignore their mandates.
Perhaps the point of the incessant focus on past actions is the result of a need to clean our record here at home before solving torture abroad. But central to that solution is a clarification of what does and does not constitute torture, what is and is not allowed under the 1950 agreement. In concert with their actions to investigate the actions of and potentially prosecute Bush Justice Department officials, President Obama should issue a statement ensuring the nation that his administration will stick to the letter of the law, as dictated by the Geneva Convention, concerning the torture of prisoners of war. Only after such a clarification can the U.S. legally proceed with its efforts to revitalize its image and restore order to the international community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)