I reject that accurately reporting American acts of torture somehow hurts the War On Terror. Torturing innocent individuals does far more damage than reporting about it.
The media may have a long list of sins for which they must pay, and they may have taken some positions that have hurt the war on terror, but accurately chronicling our shortcomings is not one.
And with that, I will shut up on this whole issue.
michael shew
Well said.
Cecil Turner
“I reject that accurately reporting American acts of torture somehow hurts the War On Terror. Torturing innocent individuals does far more damage than reporting about it.”
I take it you’re talking about the Times piece. If so, you’ve got at least two assumptions in there: accurate and innocent. Unless the times makes its file available, many of the “facts” are unverifiable, and some are implausible (e.g., the claim about the investigation being stalled until reporters discovered the autopsy findings). And it’s clearly an atypical case (it was identified as the “longest-running investigation” by the WaPo a year ago). The “innocent” bit is based on an anonymous interpreter’s opinion and the victim’s parents (not that it’s terribly important, torturing guilty people isn’t on, either).
I am also having a hard time seeing what this story accomplished that the one in September didn’t. The relative media emphasis on US infractions gives the mistaken impression that the US is the worse offender. The “insurgency” violates Geneva literally hundreds of times a week: every hostage taking, prisoner killing, or attack on civilians is a “grave breach.” When those do get air time, it’s generally as part of a lamentation of the poor security situation. In a perfect world, the negative coverage ought to be proportional to the number and severity of offenses. And while I realize that’s not likely to happen, the current situation is rather the inverse. It seems to me that’s an accuracy issue as well.
Libertine
The “insurgency” violates Geneva literally hundreds of times a week: every hostage taking, prisoner killing, or attack on civilians is a “grave breach.”
I completely and catagorically reject the premise that because terrorist thugs execute their hostages it somehow makes the US military’s use of torture acceptable. The US using torture lowers us, morally, closer to the terrorists. We are supposed to be the paragon of freedom, liberty and equality…not of torture and renditions, which sadly we are more closely identified with currently.
ppgaz
John, your treatment of the subject has been thorough and thoughtful.
Well done.
And since the stories aren’t nearly about to go away … keep it up. After a rest, of course.
TJ Jackson
Oh course torturing innocents isn’t acceptable. Seen any innocent terrorists lately?
TheMadBrewer
“Torturing innocent individuals does far more damage than reporting about it”
I would strike “innocent” from that line. How can we hold the high moral ground if we use torture. If we don’t hold the high moral ground we are nothing more than thugs.
John Cole
Oh course torturing innocents isn’t acceptable. Seen any innocent terrorists lately?
I don;t know why I even bother.
Cecil Turner
“I completely and catagorically reject the premise that because terrorist thugs execute their hostages it somehow makes the US military’s use of torture acceptable.”
If you find someone making that argument, give him a stern talking to. Meanwhile, back on the subject of whether biased media coverage is a concern . . .
There is widespread belief among Arabs that Jews use the blood of Arabs to make Passover matzoh balls. Many in the Mideast believe 9/11 was a Mossad plot. And due in part to the slanted coverage, many believe the US commits more atrocities than our foes. THis is in part due to relentlessly negative Western news coverage on US atrocities, which are taken as an admissions against interest, and given disproportionate weight. Is it too much to ask that the coverage bear some resemblance to reality? Apparently it is.
Libertine
Oh course torturing innocents isn’t acceptable. Seen any innocent terrorists lately?
In a civilized society torturing isn’t acceptable period TJ!!!
p.s. John – Never give up the fight. This isn’t a liberal/conservative or democratic/republican argument. It is much bigger then any kind of fight about politics. It is important that people of conscience across the political spectrum speak up about how wrong torture is…so I hope this isn’t your last statement on the topic.
Libertine
If you find someone making that argument, give him a stern talking to. Meanwhile, back on the subject of whether biased media coverage is a concern . . .
Thanks for giving me your permission Cecil.
But it is part of this debate. The people trying to deflect the blame from the administration for their misconduct in the prosecution of this war are trying to make the media a strawman to distract the people from the facts at hand. If Machiavelli was alive today he would be damned proud of the current administration.
Far North
TJ, do you realize that an estimated 70% to 90% of detainees in Abu Graib were not guilty of anything except being in the wrong place when US soldiers performed sweeps? (I believe that number was from the International Red Cross). Do you believe that every detainee is guilty of being a terrorist.
Give it shot, TJ. How about a reasoned response to the issue I raised? I suspect you’ll attack me and call the international red cross and extremist wing of the US hating UN.
Jon H
TJ,
Can we torture you until you prove that you’re innocent?
Cecil Turner
“Thanks for giving me your permission Cecil.”
No sweat.
“. . . trying to make the media a strawman . . .”
Might want to look up strawman fallacy . . . what it actually means is distorting your opponent’s position and then attacking your own argument (like, for example, your bit above about making torture acceptable).
As far as Bush=Bad being part of the debate, you can argue that one with yourself. Cheers.
Far North
Libertine,
You are correct. US torture is the issue, not the media reporting about US torture. This in not democrat or republican, liberal or conservative. This is about America and American ideals.
If the media reporting about torture is problem, then the government should stop the torture so the media can’t report it. It really is as simple as that.
A free press, with all its faults, performs an essential function in holding government accountable.
It’s dissappointing to hear from those that think reporting on the wrongdoing is a bigger problem than the wrongdoing itself.
Jon H
Cecil Turner writes: “THis is in part due to relentlessly negative Western news coverage on US atrocities”
So what you’re asking for is positive news coverage of US atrocities.
Noted.
Maybe FOX News could run a tribute to interrogation heroes, with a highlight film, showing their best leg breaks.
TJ Jackson
Jon:
What other comment could we expect from a dhimmie like you?
North Troll:
Really imagine that all those innocent detainees. According to who, someone with real bona fides like the Red Cross which allows its abulances to be used by Hamas?
What a moron. Think for a moment do you think the military is going to waste time and resources locking up grannies? Oops, I forgot I am dealing with someone with substandard education and no military experience.
Jon H
“What other comment could we expect from a dhimmie like you?”
No, really. If you were put to torture, how would you prove your innocence?
How could the torturers distinguish innocence from just being “tough to crack”?
Jon H
Also, TJ, how much torture do you think you could endure before you’d “confess” to being a terrorist?
Jon H
TJ writes: “Think for a moment do you think the military is going to waste time and resources locking up grannies?”
There’s been septuagenarian men locked up at Gitmo.
It frankly wouldn’t surprise me at all if ‘grannies’ were locked up.
LEE
how bout we offer our prisoners/captives/insurgent guests hot tea and muffins to get info? ‘torture’ as a definition will always be debated. nude photos? sawdust in wounds? forced 50mi marches? sliced off heads? normal people can easily guess which is torture. the nyt, wapo, ect dedicate (with glee) much more time to American’s mistakes than the terrorists. just trying to sell a paper, make a buck or.. something else? doesn’t take a psychiatists to analyze it correctly.
and ‘far north’:”an estimated 70% to 90% of detainees in Abu Graib were not guilty of anything except being in the wrong place when US soldiers performed sweeps? (I believe that number was from the International Red Cross).” wow. Red cross is helluva investagating agency, but i’ll trust the US over them any day.
TJ Jackson
Jon:
I really can’t respond to your question without descending to your level. Its nice to know there are people out there who are more concerned with the rights of people who massacre kindergarden children, execute the wounded, bomb mosques, issue training manuals specifying targets such as civilians, medics, chaplains, and TV journalists. So big of you. Tell us all why you think they are worthy of such support. Could it be because you love their methods? That you can’t bear to believe American troops are welcomed while their opponents depend on beheading.
I know this. That those who whine about torture would be the first to employ it for the joy and satisfaction of doing so.
Go back to your parent’s basement. Your education and manners are showing. Why don’t you really impress us and tell us about your resume, I bet you even graduated from preschool.
syn
In America, torture is certainly acceptable when artists, actors, writers, directors create Kill Bill for profit and prestige cause ya know that’s too cool dude and hey, adults really like it when that skinny chick tortures her enemies for vengeful sport. But then ya know, we are free to do so.
How’s about Mapplethorpe and his form of high erotic and sexually pleasured torture?
I could go on and on and on……
That said, by the very definition treatment of terrorists cannot fall under the terms defined in the Geneva Convention.
If this were the case, why not simply have our soldiers remove their uniforms, and hack off the heads of their captures just so that American soldiers can be portrayed as following the terms of the Geneva Convention.
Will this please your (lacking objective) standards?
Jon H
TJ Jackson, you clearly see the emptiness and moral indefensibility of your support for torture, which is why you’re lashing out.
I’ve been quite civil. Asking questions such as I ask above is meant to try to get you to think through your position, and to get you to see that torture is not effective.
Torture presumes guilt, and torture offers no means of determining innocence. If you’re innocent, the torturer won’t believe you. So how do you make the torture stop?
I want you to think through the situation, by considering what you would do if you were in the situation of an innocent Afghan cab driver, falsely accused of being a terrorist.
If my words seem harsh to you, it’s because you recognize the evil within yourself, and feel ashamed to have adopted the morals of America’s enemies.
Jon H
“If the soldiers didn’t torture they would be getting killed more!”
There’s no evidence of that.
Hell, they spend so much time torturing the innocent, that they probably never get around to the few who actually know anything.
Far North
TJ can’t develop a legitimate arguement to support his position. Notice how most of his posts are attacks on those that he disagrees with.
As I said in another post to TJ:
Channel that anger, dude. Be productive. Go find Osama.
Far North
TJ can’t develop a legitimate arguement to support his position. Notice how most of his posts are attacks on those that he disagrees with.
As I said in another post to TJ:
Channel that anger, dude. Be productive. Go find Osama.
willyb
Far North comments . . . “TJ, do you realize that an estimated 70% to 90% of detainees in Abu Graib were not guilty of anything except being in the wrong place when US soldiers performed sweeps? (I believe that number was from the International Red Cross). Do you believe that every detainee is guilty of being a terrorist.” Far North went on to say . . . “I suspect you’ll attack me and call the international red cross and extremist wing of the US hating UN.”
Here is the WSJ’s take on the issues you raise — As Bad as the Nazis? May 23, 2005; Page A14:
“In other words, the ICRC hides behind the confidentiality rule when being candid might embarrass its own officials. But it drops the same rule when it is in a position to embarrass the United States, however unfairly. News of the ICRC Quran reports last week came just as the U.S. was scrambling to undo the damage in the Muslim world from the discredited Newsweek story.
This behavior has unfortunately become an ICRC pattern. A pair of earlier ICRC reports on U.S. detention policies in Iraq and at Guantanamo were leaked to the press, and readily confirmed by ICRC officials in Geneva. The Guantanamo report, moreover, called the practice of indefinite detention at that prison “tantamount to torture,” a phrase that has since been repeated everywhere by people wanting to damage the U.S.
As we pointed out at the time, that statement was absurd, given that the ICRC’s main complaint about the Gitmo detainees is that they were not granted prisoner of war status. POWs are explicitly allowed by the Geneva Conventions to be held indefinitely — that is, for the duration of a conflict. Another problem has been the ICRC’s pretense that its policy document called Protocol 1 — once dubbed “a shield for terrorists” by the New York Times — is settled international law and applies to the U.S.
Which brings us back to the “Nazi” reference by that ICRC official at Camp Bucca. We wouldn’t normally report the remarks, however offensive, of a single official. But after we started asking about the incident, we began to hear from other sources that someone was attempting damage control by alerting the ICRC’s friends in the media and State Department about what we might report. One media proponent of the “torture” allegation against the U.S. warned on the Internet that we were out to smear the ICRC (which, we should add, is not the same as the American Red Cross).
No. We are trying to understand how a representative of an organization pledged to neutrality and the honest investigation of detainee practices could compare American soldiers to the Nazi SS. And considering the timing and content of several ICRC confidentiality breaches concerning the U.S. war on terror, it’s fair to ask if similar views aren’t held by a substantial number in the organization.
The world needs a truly neutral humanitarian body of the sort the ICRC is supposed to be. But the Camp Bucca incident — in addition to the leaked Gitmo and Abu Ghraib reports — is evidence it isn’t currently up to the task. “
TJ Jackson
Jon:
I can see you doing more drugs than usual when you start whipping out quotes out of thin air. But this only demonstrates your simpering witlessness. I quite agree you have a morally indefensible position supporting terrorism. Perhaps you can explain why you feel so strongly about defending people who murder kindergarden children and behead their captives. But it is apparent you have no moral compass.
North Troll:
Your assertions are backed by the same quality evidence as your anlysis. Defaming people is no substitute for reason or logic. Your evidence is so impressive and your logic exceeded only by Helen Thomas. Back to your sandbox little boy.
Do explain to us once again why murdering scum are your main concern in life? One can only assume you share their vision of a better tomorrow, good dhimmie that you are.
John
TJ, what would you say to the argument that reporting on US abuses is likely to have an effect, i.e. reducing them, while reporting on abuses by terrorists will have little effect, as we’re already at war with them and killing them by the dozen?
That seems to me a good reason to report on these types of stories.
Halffasthero
Damn, I love these exchanges! This is a nice battleground blog! Most of the others, ring and left wing are all about preaching to the choir. Personally I find this all healthy.
Slartibartfast
John, I’m 100% in agreement with you.
MD
Why fear the truth? And isn’t accuracy, verifiable fact, the truth, that point where we all can meet, right and left?
All ‘sides’ have politicized this issue. Some are all too ready to believe any allegation, however thin the source, and some are all too ready to disbelieve any report, no matter how thorough the investigation behind it. The truth isn’t going to hurt us, and if you believe that than you can’t really have faith in the country, in this cause, and in this war. Not in your heart of hearts.
So, let it all come out, ask for every bit of information, try to verify everything, be as persistent and dedicated to the truth as we bloggers are supposed to be in our best ‘incarnation’.
Removing Saddam was the right thing to do, in my opinion. I have always believed that, and still do. One of my friends lost her brother in Iraq, and she doesn’t support this war and never has. She knows my position, I know hers. A few months ago she spoke at an anti-war rally, and asked me for help. So, I tried to help her, we exchanged e-mails, she is a person interested in the truth and didn’t want to spread any silly propaganda. She refused to talk about depleted uranium when asked. I have the utmost respect for her.
When I see a pundit ask for less than the truth, all I can think is: what are you so afraid of?
donsurber
INACCURATE reporting does what?
David Rossie
To TJ,
When someone continues to be rash in an argument, we must ask them “what are you hiding?” It’s one thing to be rash here or there. But if someone or something continues to instigate your indignance, why do you bother to stay? I know, it’s something to do with YOU!
So what are you hiding? What you’re doing for us is replicating the problems that Mr. Cole highlighted. It’s like we have a bad-tempered version of Hewitt and Malkin (do I repeat myself?) in here to remind us of what the problem is: willful ignorance.
MD,
Good points. I am entirely against the war, but I prefer honest discussion any day to blatant lying against the war. That being said, so much is unknown and fuzzy (WMDs, of course) that just because something isn’t verified by the media doesn’t mean it’s not true. Some people at anti-war rallies who said that the WMDs were not a proven problem were strongly denounced by hawks, and look who turned out to be right?
TJ Jackson
Mr. Rossie:
Who turned out to be right about the WMD? We’ll have the truth in 20 years. In the 60s the Left told us the Vietnam War was a civil war, well that myth was shattered when 20 NVA divisions supported by 500 tanks crushed the South. We were told by the Left that the USSR was peace loving until of course they invaded Afghanistan. All the issues the Left has contested have been proven wrong.
All evidence is that Saddam had WMD at the start of the crisis. I have one question for you to answer so lets see how honest you are. If Saddam didn’t have WMD why did he obstruct the UN inspection teams and refuse to comply with the UN’s mandate that he demonstrate what he had done with them? Had he done so he’d still be slaughtering people to his heart’s content.
Why do you suppose he didn’t?
I am not sure what sources you have but I find it more than a little bit compelling that all Western intlligence agencies had the same opinion. So I guess you and the Left had access to some sort of superior super secret data. Could you let us know this source?
Finally perhaps you can explain to me what Russian Spec Ops troops were doing in Baghdad prior to the war? Russian troops were withdrawn in the early 90s following the Gulf War.
Libertine
Good points. I am entirely against the war, but I prefer honest discussion any day to blatant lying against the war. That being said, so much is unknown and fuzzy (WMDs, of course) that just because something isn’t verified by the media doesn’t mean it’s not true.
We have been all over Iraq and no significant amounts of WoMD have been discovered. This is part of my criticism of the MSM. During the run-up to the war they reported that Saddam had large caches of WoMD without doing any investigation. Did the conservatives skewer the MSM for reporting something that wasn’t verfied? Hell no!!! Now that they are reporting on issues that are critical of the Bush Administration the right is screaming.
Selectivity in criticism…
TJ Jackson
Libertine:
Do you realizethey found over 2,000 tropedoes in Iraq? Can you tell what Saddam was doing with torpedoes if he had no subs?
Can you tell me with a straight face that every Western intelligence service belived and still believes Saddam had WMD and that they are wrong and you have a better source of information.
I’m sure the intelligence agencies of the world await your response with anticipation. I know I’d trulky like to know from which oracle you received this data.
By the way since you are such an expert on intlligence can you explain the term NOFORN to me please?
Kimmitt
Can you tell me with a straight face that every Western intelligence service belived and still believes Saddam had WMD
I was kind of under the impression that they had revised their opinions, given the fact that we found jack squat. I understand that changing one’s mind in the face of reality is out of vogue in conservative circles (witness GM’s SUV-related marketing strategy, for example), but more serious people who understand that lives are on the line have to operate by a different set of rules.
We didn’t find them. The UN inspectors didn’t find them. The Ba’athists we’ve captured have not helped us find them. At some point, Occam’s razor has to kick in. Either Saddam mastered quantum tunneling, or he didn’t have all that much.
Jon H
TJ writes: “Do you realizethey found over 2,000 tropedoes in Iraq? Can you tell what Saddam was doing with torpedoes if he had no subs?”
Torpedoes are also launched from boats, above water.
For example, the old PT Boats had torpedo launchers.