Not sure what to make of this:
The conservative response to Abu Ghraib has been fascinating, hasn’t it? First reaction: this is horrible and the soldiers involved should have the book thrown at them.
Second reaction: yeah, it’s bad, it really is, but it’s worth remembering that it’s nowhere near as bad as what Saddam did.
Third reaction: enough, enough! Jeez, it’s been a whole week. This issue has been hijacked by militant Bush-haters who just want to use it for craven partisan reasons.
Fourth reaction: still to come. Maybe torturers as heroes thanks to testimony from someone or other that one of the scraps of information they extracted saved a convoy somewhere? Hey, war is hell.
Umm, it is horrible and the soldiers should have the book thrown at them.
It is not as bad as what happened under Saddam, although in some regards, I think it is worse. We aren’t Ba’athists. We aren’t Saddam Hussein. We are supposed to be better than that.
It is being hijacked and turned into a political issue.
I have no problem if Rumsfeld decides to resign because he wants to show the world how serious the United States is about this issue, and that he accepts responsibility. I do have a problem with peoiple trying to blame Rumsfeld for this, which is what I am seeing.
The fourth part is just nonsense. Torturers are not heroes, despite what Dershowitz might think.
BTW- I am filing this under outrage, not because I find Kevin’s remarks outrageous, but because the Abu Gharib issue is, on the whole,. disgusting and outrageous.
JKC
I think I understand where you’re coming from here. I don’t think, though, that the goal of every Democrat is to use Abu Ghraib for political gain. I’d also note that John McCain seemed to have the sharpest knives out for Rumsfeld.
But I don’t think it’s partisan to point out that the decision to suspend the Geneva Conventions in Guantanomo was made by the Bush Administration, and that it was Rumsfeld’s Pentagon that denied the ICRC access to parts of Abu Ghraib.
I do think we have a duty to determine if this was the work of a few bad apples in one Reserve unit, or if this was a bigger problem.
smitty
i enjoy a j lazarus’s and JKC’s long posts — the longer the better. the more time self-deluded morons like lazarus and JKC spend spinning their partisan bullshit, the safer the republic is.
JKC
Just be sure to ask if you’re having trouble with the big words, smitty.
S.W. Anderson
Anyone who thinks Willie was slick ought to track Rumsfeld closely for awhile. You’ll see what slick really is.
Even though I’m not a big fan of Rumsfeld policy-wise, I don’t think he deserves to have the full weight of blame for the Abu Gharieb mess dumped on him.
I sure don’t want him to resign, at least not unless some new, compelling reason emerges. A key reason why I don’t want Rumsfeld to resign has to do with his most likely replacement. Now, that *is* a scary prospect.
Andrew J. Lazarus
I mean this in all seriousness: was the pressure from the general public and from the opposition Labour and Liberal parties that forced Neville Chamberlain to resign (to be replaced by Churchill) also an inappropriate partisan feeding frenzy? Should the British have “stayed the course” with Chamberlain? Now, I realize we don’t have a parliamentary system, but we aren’t asking Pres. Bush to resign, merely that a Cabinet official be replaced. One would think that allowing regularized torture (a word Rumsfeld has been unable to utter even after seeing the next round of even worse videos) would be just cause.
Now, Chamberlain had to deal with the bankruptcy of his foreign relations, that had already been evident for many months, AND almost unbroken military reversals. On a strictly military level, we are winning as decisively as the British were losing, but as far as winning some battle to implant democratic values in the hearts and minds of the Arab World, this week is Dunkirk without any boats.
LSU Student
Political? No, this isn’t Po..
“Beyond abuse of prisoners, there are other photos that depict incidents of physical violence toward prisoners, acts that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman.”
Donald Rumsfeld
Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee
May 7, 2004
“I’m not a lawyer. My impression is that what has been charged thus far is abuse, which I believe technically is different from torture … I don’t know if it is correct to say what you just said, that torture has taken place, or that there’s been a conviction for torture. And therefore I’m not going to address the torture word.”
Donald Rumsfeld
Press Briefing
May 4, 2004
But, since it’s not political, I don’t know what to call that.
Terry
It is more than a little strange and hypocritical to read or hear comments of those on the left criticizing Secretary Rumsfeld and/or the Bush Administration over many aspects of the Iraqi prisoner-abuse scandal. Particularly galling are the comments indicting the Secretary and others for violations of the Geneva Convention. No one in the Administration has denied that what happened at Abu Ghraib prison was a violation of all aspects of American laws, culture and beliefs. All have proclaimed what happened a disgusting event. Virtually all objective observers acknowledge that the military was prompt and disciplined in initiating an investigation of all aspects of the matter. Many observers of all political persuasions have, however, noted that the failure to promptly alert the President, Congress and the American public of the full dimensions of this issue was a grave error in judgement. Albeit late, the Secretary has come forward with disclosures about the matter consistent with preservation of both the prosecutorial and defense rights of those involved.
Among the many amazing aspects to this matter has been the abject failure to at least acknowledge that the Left’s candidate for President has publicly confessed to personally committing war “atrocities” when he served in Vietnam that are not that far removed from what happened at Abu Ghraib; in fact, in a great many respects, what he has admitted to is far worse in the sense that his actions some 30+ years ago actually resulted in the deaths of a great many innocent civilians.
He told “Meet the Press” that “There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions…” He has more recently acknowledged that some of his words were inappropriate but has never recanted his claims of U.S. atrocities by himself and others – recanting would mean saying he lied in sworn testimony to Congress.
Perhaps that’s why Kerry at first was so cautious on the prisoner-abuse issue and spoke so gingerly as he said the U.S. response was “slow and inappropriate.” It’s the latest case where Kerry’s campaign seems hamstrung, with his record coming back to haunt him.
Kimmitt
“All have proclaimed what happened a disgusting event.”
We’re aware of what they’ve proclaimed. We’re also aware that they are essentially responsible. That’s the difference between Kerry and Bush; Kerry found himself doing terrible things in an awful situation, then came home to try to change it. Bush created an awful situation in which people did terrible things, then stayed home and did nothing to change it.
Adrian Warnock
Unfortunately this was not such an isolated incident as we have been led to believe. I have covered the UK media’s reporting of a Red Cross report on my blog that suggests there have been widespread abuses.
Terry
Contrasting Kerry’s actions of some 30 or so years ago with those of Bush reflects what Larry Kaplan has referred to as the clich
GrantR
Kimmit: “Bush created an awful situation in which people did terrible things, then stayed home and did nothing to change it.”
How did Bush create the situation? Do you mean just by going into Iraq, he is responsible for the sadism of a few guards?
And what do you mean he did nothing to change it? The abuse has stopped as far as I can tell, and compensation is being suggested. Plus, Bush has appeared on alhurrah and alarabiya to explain the situation, and has even apologized at least twice.
What did you expect, for Bush to cut and run from Iraq now that cases of abuse have been discovered? Let me remind you, he’s no John Kerry.
Marc
It is being hijacked and turned into a political issue.
The abuse of prisoners is a political issue. Simply because it is damaging to your boy GWB and his staff doesn’t mean it is a hijacking.
This entire episode is the fault of the administration for the policies they create. Holding prisoners without access to lawyers and no other form of legal redress, refusal to participate in the International Criminal Courts, and the condonement of the belief that prisoners are guilty until proven innocent. This is the expected result of those policies and it follows that not only Rumsfeld, but members of the joint chiefs and the President and Vice-President are responsible for the culture they have created.
What did you think was going to happen?
Andrew J. Lazarus
This idea that we are talking about the sadism of a few guards is just a desperate retreat from confronting the obvious.
1. As Mark Kleiman puts it,
2. But that’s far from all (even waiting for whatever revelations come from trials). If this were just a few sadistic guards, why would David Kay, Paul Bremer, and Colin Powell all have complained, unsuccessfully, to the highest levels of the Administration?
Now do you start to see why we’re slowly beginning to attribute the responsibility and the blame to HIGH levels in the Adminstration?
3. I can see some sadistic guards just beating, maybe even raping, the detainees, but why would they go to the trouble of setting up the role-playing games with the pyramids and the hoods? The elaborate sexual humiliations with the hooded pyramids and the like seem to have been a bastardized version of specialized interrogation techniques taught by British special services. Sounds like something arranged by the MI contractors, hence unlikely to be confined to any particular unit.
4. The ICRC says abuse is widespread—and that’s even without whatever they would have found in the parts if the prison and from the prisoners that were illegally hidden from them (see Taguba report).
5. The decision to dishonor the Geneva Conventions at Gitmo was made at the highest levels of the government; Rumsfeld airily dismissed them as obsolete. The decision to interpolate lawless 007 Get-out-of-jail-free contractors into the interrogation process was made at the highest levels, and implemented by Gen. Miller at Gitmo, whom we now expect (heh!) to clean up the stench in Iraq.
6. The defense lawyers for the cretinous guards say that the orders came from above, from high levels. Now, they may be lying, and this isn’t much of a defense (though I suppose it might help ini a plea bargain), but it’s worth something.
Stacked against this we have—well, nothing really, other than wishful thinking. Actually, I wish it were true. But it isn’t any truer than Santa Claus.
SDN
I’m hearing lot’s of people prattle about the Geneva Convention, and who it does and doesn’t apply to:
Third Geneva Convention website
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Well, guess what? Fighting from inside holy places, such as mosques, isn’t “in accordance with the laws and customs of war.” Fighting using a civilian population as cover isn’t “in accordance with the laws and customs of war.” None of them carry arms openly, and most of them don’t have uniforms unless you count kaffeyeh(sp). So an arguable case exists that the Convention doesn’t apply here.
And the Convention prescribes who should settle the question:”neutral powers.” Who should those be? The UN, which has been accused (and a mountain of evidence provided) of being in the pay of the former dictator? The French? the Russians? (both of whom were also bribed.) One of the dozens of countries around the world whose governments are Muslim, and are thus commanded by the Koran to deal falsely with any infidel, and side with any Muslim against him? NONSENSE!
Andrew J. Lazarus
SDN, I’m confused: is your claim REALLY that the fact the terrorists do not follow the Geneva Convention means we don’t have to? That case isn’t arguable: it’s clear from the Third GC that alleged unlawful combatants are entitled to a hearing to contest their designation (after which, if found to be unlawful combatants, they can even be executed).
Or is just more of “Mommy, Jimmy did it even worse.”? In a world that’s seen Auschwitz, measuring yourself against the other guy is a very, very low standard.
We even claimed that in Iraq we would follow the Geneva Conventions, but we didn’t. After all the denial and excuses, the same feeling of group shame we liberals feel will settle on you. “My country right or wrong” is going to take on a different meaning, when our country is very, very wrong.
GrantR
Andrew,
The investigation into prisoner abuse started before the whole press got ahold of it and the conflagration started.
Why would they investigate the abuse if it was all done according to the interrogative procedures that were okayed, or if the torture was ordained from high up in command?
And if Bremers, Kays and others complaints about prisoner abuse went unheeded, then why did the investigation start a few months ago, before the pic’s got out (at least as is my understanding of events)?
SDN
Actually, Andrew, that’s exactly what it means. The Geneva Convention, like the Constitution, is not a suicide pact.
JKC
And neither, SDN, give the government of the United States carte blanche to behave like the Ba’ath Party.
I’ll try to phrase this in terms you can understand:
We’re Americans. The Good Guys. We’re supposed to be better than this.
If you can’t understand that, then I pity you.
Andrew J. Lazarus
SDN, you simply can’t read. Art 1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.
All circumstances.
Now, are you going to argue that torture and rapine are required by exigent circumstances when the opposition is a terrorist group, or are you going to be more honest, and admit that it might be fun to experiment with the darkest side of the human soul and hope to get away with it, if the other side is a terrorist group?
GrantR, your timeline is way off. The Red Cross, Kay, Bremer, and Powell were complaining as far back as last fall. The Army’s investigation began only when some of the photos fell into the hands of an honorable man, this January.
They were also attacking the problem from opposite ends. The Taguba Report started from the bottom, with the S&M porn, and moved up as Taguba discovered the prison was run in a manner contrary to law and regulation by guards in conjunction with contractors. The other officials seem, from interviews, not to have known much about specific abuse (at least not the torture), but to recognize that overcrowding, undertraining of guards, improper failure to release people detained by mistake, and an already-evident breakdown in chain of responsibility (caused by the interpolation of contractors and by indifference in Washington) were a recipe for disaster. And how right they were! What was it Brooks said? “Weapons of mass morale destruction.” Good line, for a pro-Bush Republican.
SDN
Andrew,
Sorry, but I read just fine. The definition of a POW is quite clear:
Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
JKC
Does that mean that a US Special Forces soldier can be tortured at will if captured? They’re often “out of uniform.”
How about those contractors in Fallujah? They certainly weren’t soldiers in recognizable uniform. Are you saying that under Rummy’s Rules of Engagement that it was OK for a mob to desecrate their bodies?
You might want to try using your BRAIN to think with, SDN, instead of your testicles. They clearly aren’t up to the task.
Andrew J. Lazarus
JKC is, of course, correct that on SDN’s reasoning, there was nothing inappropriate about the killings and corpse-desecration in Falluja, given that our contractors aren’t in uniform.
However, SDN’s reasoning is entirely wrong. He stopped reading before he got to Art. 5 [my emphasis]:
Indeed, I’ve noticed in the paper that we have convened Art. 5 tribunals to release Iraqis caught up by mistake.
The Geneva Convention has been ratified as a treaty and is the law of the United States. And we aren’t following it. All circumstances. Tribunals required (none yet at Gitmo two years on, pursuant to our unilateral renunciation of the Convention when it didn’t suit Rumsfeld’s purpose.)