John Pike finally drives it home and says, on the pages of a national daily, what all this WP BS really is- anti- American propaganda:
DESPITE EFFORTS to improve its image abroad, the United States has just suffered a damaging global propaganda defeat. And unfortunately, some of the wounds were self-inflicted.
Three weeks ago, the world’s news media erupted into a feeding frenzy over new charges that the Americans were up to their evil old tricks. The story was all too familiar: Once again, it seemed, the United States had committed unspeakable atrocities, then lied about its illegal activities and been exposed. Every day there were fresh revelations and allegations. There is just one problem. It isn’t true.
***In early November, Italian state television aired a documentary about the use of white phosphorus in Fallouja. It showed video of mangled bodies said to be civilians killed by white phosphorus. The charges were sensational but, even on cursory examination, unconvincing. Nonetheless, in the days that followed, the story spread like wildfire as world news organizations gave credence to this absurdity.
The U.S. government only compounded the problem by denying that WP had been used in Fallouja for anything other than illuminating the battlefield. The government flatly rejected the charge that it had been used to burn enemy combatants. This claim, however, was untrue and easily disproved. An Army Field Artillery magazine article written earlier this year by soldiers who had fired the artillery in Fallouja described “shake and bake” missions — cannons firing WP incendiary rounds along with high-explosive shells to flush out insurgents from trenches and hiding places.
***Another argument being made is that white phosphorus is an illegal chemical weapon, a poison gas. Bloggers soon found a couple of U.S. government websites containing documents that seemed to assert that WP was a chemical weapon. Closer reading revealed nothing of the sort.
Widely ignored in all this is the ultimate source authority, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which is the international agency supervising the global destruction of chemical weapons. It flatly states that “napalm and phosphorus are not considered to be [chemical weapons] agents.”
Even if Think Progress, DKos, and some unkown low-level analyst’s description of a conversation between a couple of Kurdish brothers on the phone state otherwise, WP is not a chemical weapon.
But enough carping- Pike gets down to what angered me almost as much as the obscene and unsubstantiated charges- where the hell was the administration and the Pentagon when it came to refuting this crap? The General Pace story below is the first I have seen of an organized pushback. Before that, it was me and a few milbloggers and bloggers fighting a sea of agitprop and anti-American cant.
So with no direct evidence of an atrocity, and the United States using lawful weapons, why does most of the world now believe just the contrary? And make no mistake: This slowly emerged as a story here, but it has been a big story around the world.
I was confronted with these disparate realities when I was interviewed both by CNN and CNN International a few days after the story broke. Domestic CNN, airing here in the United States, was skeptical of the scandal. CNN International, airing before an audience that had already accepted the Italian documentary as fact, took a far less skeptical approach. The two CNNs — one for the U.S. and one for everyone else — embodied the separate realities now occupied by the United States and the rest of the world. We see ourselves as well intentioned. Much of the rest of the world does not.
And where was the U.S. government while our reputation was dragged through more mud? Where was the State Department’s uber-spinmeister, Karen Hughes, all this time? U.S. officials were exacerbating the problem, providing easily debunked denials that simply stoked the feeding frenzy.
The only scandal here is that our government allowed the nation to fall victim to clumsy, cheap anti-American propaganda. At least during the Cold War, we made the Soviets work to discredit us.
I will tell you where they were. They were AWOL, and it has been a disgrace from the beginning, starting with sending out an ill-informed State Department spokesmen to talk about things he/she clearly did not understand, and then ignoring everything tossed out by our enemies abroad and their unwitting domestic allies.
neil
Alternate hypothesis: The government, in successfully shifting the question from whether the U.S. is indiscriminately slaughtering civilians to whether the U.S. is violating international chemical weapons treaties, parried the propaganda nicely. The chemical weapon case is much more easily proven in the U.S.’s favor, and the dispute blows over with everybody assuming that they proved that civilian lives are being duly protected.
Mike S
Bullshit. I can see it being misguided or even anti-Bush but yu cross the line with anti-American.
neil
Oh, and I forgot to mention that it also allows the ‘slime and defend’ treatment: instead of merely being proven wrong, the White House’s opponents are in fact proven to be America-hating, troop-smearing, enemy-propaganda-spreading dupes! Hooray! Everyone wins, except the terrorists!
Pb
Woo hoo! Balloon Juice: All White Phosphorus, All The Time!
At an undisclosed location?
That is to say, they were doing what they always do. Perhaps from an undisclosed location. I mean, I would if I were them.
John Cole
Neil- You are using the word ‘hypothesis’ much the same way creationists use the word ‘theory’ when describing Intelligent Design.
John Cole
The crap coming from RAI, promoted by the foreign press, repeated by outlets were most certainly anti-American. That may not have been the intent (and I don’t think it was- I do think they are, as you state, anti-Bush and against this war) of the credulous lefties that repeated this stuff, but that was the practical effect.
gswift
God I wish people from my side of the aisle would lay off this. We’re talking about goddamn firefights. If shake and bake means we don’t have to send in guys on foot to flush them out, then shake and bake away.
This is not a boxing match people. When this kind of fight starts, someone isn’t going to walk away. I’d prefer as few of our guys go down as possible. If that means some WP to flush out the enemy, so be it.
Mike S
But you are painting with a wide brush in that statement. I could even accept a refinement saying that the original sourses were anti-American and the bloggers helped spread their message.
Having a difference of opinion on what is acceptable in our name is a far cry from being anti-American. I think the way people pushed the story was misguided and wrong but I don’t think they are anti-American. Leave that kind of rhetoric to blowhards like Hannity and co.
Pb
As to anti-American: this is a question of intent–much like “Bush lied”.
Lines
Evidence of harm done? Evidence of terrorists feeling “emboldened” because some bloggers and some news sources claimed that the US may have committed some war crimes?
I’m thinking the only harm done was to your blood pressure.
I believe more harm is done by having actual memos come out that show our government thinks the Geneva conventions are “quaint”, that we ignore evidence that contradicts earlier reasoning and we allow our President to claim “we don’t torture” while the Vice President is peddling a law that permits torture and we find out the American government is using old European Gulags to commit renditioning.
It really appear White Phosphorous is a pretty tiny little blip to the world, but for you its a reason to have an aneurism.
neil
gswift: That seems dangerously close to the ‘nuke the Middle East from orbit’ philosophy.
John: What, that wasn’t a ‘proposed explanation for a phenomenon?’
John Cole
Neil- Another thing. In order for you ‘hypothesis’ to be operative, one of the central assumptions these folks trying to use the ‘chemical weapons’ dodge to avoid allegations of civilian massacres was the belief that certain elements of American society would sieze upon the chemical weapons charges, completely willing to believe the worst about the military, in order for this hypothetical stategery to work. Guess they were right.
jg
Fuck you and your stupid belief that I hate troops or that I’m fucking stupid enough to pass on anti-american shit from other countries.
If what I see as a problem can also be seen as an opportunity to bash america by clowns overseas I shouldn’t say my piece? Are you trying to say that? Some assholes in other countries hate america so now I can’t question my government because in your fucked up mind I’m passing on anti-american agitprop?
neil
Yes, that was part of my assumption.
Marcus Wellby
I believe that is what this administration calls “staying the course”.
feral1
This administration is so incompetent and so unethical, they probably assumed that WP had been used illegitemately and reflexively lied about it, because that’s what they do with every other issue. This just happened to be a case where they could have made a credible honest counter arguement if they weren’t complete hacktards.
p.s. I’m trademarking hacktard as an insult. I’m pretty sure I just made it up.
Mike S
I’m not questioning John’s position that harm is done when stories like this turn out to be false. Every time something horrible comes up it damages our reputation. It adds to our already damaged issue from things like torture and “rendition.”
My argument is with the intent aspect of it. Does someone like Hunter argue against WP because he hates America or because he feels that using it is wrong? And I never got an answer earlier about the conflict between Pace’s contention that it is only used for marking and illuminating and previous statements that say we used it as a weapon.
John Cole
Look up unwitting.
Then ask yourself why, even we had though repeatedly explained to you in excrutiating and painstaking detail all of the details about WP, we continued to discuss this issue to debunk it.
It isn’t because we thought you were anti-American. It is because we thought you were operating from a position of ignorance. I thought you guys believed this crap because you hated Bush and they have given some reasons to distrust them (including the easily disproven State Department statement), but I also felt you were doing real damage to the country and our troops. Which is why I tried to explain this over and over and over again.
If I thought you were just intentionally spewing anti-American crap, I wouldn’t have bothered and would have just sent a few four-letter words your way.
gswift
Um, no. When you’re taking live fire from entrenched enemy fighters, and conventional rounds aren’t having an effect, it’s better to flush them out with WP and then shoot them rather than charge in there on foot to drive them out.
This is is not even remotely analagous to leveling whole cities with nukes.
Cyrus
It seems this happens in every other thread, but I have to wonder… this is what makes you call the Bush administration AWOL, a disgrace, ignorant and unprepared? Not Katrina or post-war planning in Iraq, to choose the clearest examples, but their response to a PR attack? They were slower than usual at fighting back against one of the less accurate attacks against the war – oh, no. And while you might be right about some of the WP criticism being deliberately anti-American, the damage done to our reputation by this particular exagerration/untruth/mistake/lie pales in comparison to what some of the truths about the war have caused.
I don’t even find it too surprising. They have so much experience refuting and clouding the truth, they probably just got confused when they had to do with to a falsehood. [/gratuitious snark]
neil
What I want to know is why lies about the use of WP hurt America more than the truth about the use of torture. Or are they just something you feel more empowered to deal with?
Lines
Screw it, John, I know when you get like this, you’re just on another pissed off rant that will blow over.
I still believe that lying about mobile weapons labs, aluminum tubes, claiming knowledge of WMD locations while international inspectors are attempting in every way possible to find WMDs and wrongly slandering an ex-President is FAR more harmful to our standing, is far more damaging in the long run than being mistaken about white phosphorous.
Knowing you were sent to war on exagerations and lies would definately be more demoralizing to me than a few bloggers making a mistake about a situation.
John Cole
Neil- I think I am doing everything in my power to stop both the lies about WP and the torture.
rilkefan
Why John refuses to understand or acknowledge the simple and barely-significant fact that some guy (not the Lord High Setter-of-Official-Definitions) at the Pentagon put “chemical weapon” on that “Kurdish Bros” report is beyond me. The first rule of attempted debunking is Be Accurate Yourself.
RTO Trainer
Maybe a refinementis necessary, but I’d refine it still further–I would include as negligent thouse who passed the story on with out caveat. I’d include as anti-american thouse who cheered the story on and especially those who went on excavations to find even more “proof.”
John Cole
Rilkefan- I was typing in a hurry. Does that update change anything for you?
The military STILL does not view WP as a chemical weapon, whether those were the exact words used by the brothers or a characterization of their words by a low-level analyst, and the attempts to portray that ‘intel’ as Pentagon/government policy/classifications was and is absurd.
RTO Trainer
Did your piece include any caveat? Did you state taht this was a developing story, that it looked bad but might not be true? Did you research it for yourself?
Or did you pass on the story as a matter of fact?
The questions are rhetorical. It serves no purpose to me how you treated the story, just consider the answers for yourself.
Then consider your anger at being accused of something you don’t want to be accused of where you apparen;ty don’t think you’ve done antyhing wrong. How do you think teh troops who’ve used these weapos feel? Their families?
CrockPot
Re: Mike S’ Question:
Reading the transcript found here Pace didn’t say WP’s ‘only’ use was illuminating and marking but it’s ‘primary’ use. The transcript doesn’t have anything about the use of WP as ‘Shake and Bake’ that I could tell but I only skimmed it.
My apoligies for mispellings and any html errors I was basicaly just trying to get the transcript link here for you guys.
In case the link doesn’t work right:
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2005/tr20051129-secdef4361.html
neil
I think anyone can see that you’ve expressed a lot more outrage over what Kos posts about white phosphorous than what our leaders have done about torture. But I’m willing to assume that this is because Kos might listen to you and Rumsfeld never would. The asymmetry, though, has probably led others to assume you think the WP lie is worse for America than the torture truth as well.
Mike S
Why. Because they didn’t believe a government that has been a little shady with the truth? When they heard Bush say that “we don’t torture” they were supposed to think that was his only lie?
I guess questioning the government is no longer an American thing. The Pro-American thing is to not question the government when it is controlled by the GOP, correct?
RTO Trainer
Honest question? What is the “truth” about torture? How do you know it to be true?
Bunch of people here have thought they knew the truth abotu WP and are slowly realizing different.
I can offer (and it will get me acused of sophistry, plaing semantics…) a number of scenarios that explain many of the allegation on torture that address the known facts and are not the crisis that has been alledged.
So I’d like to know how you know what you know.
John S.
Like shit? I’m sure it must be tough living with blood on your hands – even if you felt justified in taking that blood or someone told you it was OK. But at the end of the day, taking life – regardless of the justification for it – is a horrible act to commit and have to live with.
This is why I am a pacifist. I would rather be killed than live with blood on my hands.
Mike S
John’s been raging about torture for over a year. I think it’s a safe bet that if you were to count all of his torture pieces they would far out number his WP pieces.
RTO Trainer
I don’t know about you, but i was sent to war on the basis of some as yet unproven allegations and several that have been proven.
gswift
I’d say first hand accounts from our own troops + photographs of said torture go a long way towards answering this question.
Mike S
Oh my.
RTO Trainer
MikeS, yer puting words in my mouth.
let me address the honest part.
Because in excavating for facts, I’m hard pressed to beleive that they didn’t find exculpatory evidence in taht process. It was easy to find. So I think they simply didn’t present what didn’t support their case. It’s an assumption, yes, but you’d have to work mighty hard to dissuade me from it.
As for only cheering the story on, I’d think that would speak for itself.
jg
I didn’t pass on anything? I read about the issue and asked some questions but all I got back was that I was hurting the troops by asking. Now I’m being told i’m an unwitting accomplice to a massive world conspiracy to make our troops have low morale or some other bullshit.
Frankly I think I’m doing more damage to the troops if I keep my mouth shut and let our country continue on this road. The road where people are shouted down and told they hate their own country when they question its actions.
RTO Trainer
Cool. We’ve all got to have principles.
Many people are bewildered that I’m a Soldier who will killin war, but I oppose the death penalty (with one very narrow exception.)
The anger I’m refering to, though, is anger at being wrongly accused.
Mithi
I just wanted to point to this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051123/wl_nm/dutch_afghan_dc_1
gswift
For the life of me, I just cannot understand this.
RTO Trainer
So you’re talking about Abu Ghraib specifically. Nothing else?
Does it not reassure you that it was another Soldier that blew the whistle and got the garbage stopped? I mean, it does me. How come he doesn’t get credit where the others are rightly excoriated?
RTO Trainer
Mind blower. Ain’t it?
Mike S
I can understand that. One of the things that I think gets lost in the shuffle is that except for a small minority of idiots it is the policy and the people in charge that get the ire directed at them. Don’t forget that when the torture story broke it was the left that wanted to hold the administration accountable while the right tried to lay it all at the feet of the soldiers. We knew it wasn’t “a few bad apples” and things like the Baybee/Woo memos bore that out.
Brad R.
I don’t agree that Kos & Co. are being “anti-American,” but I sympathize with John here. Charges like this are explosive and can have really nasty consequences for the people they’re brought against. As such, they should be handled *extremely* carefully by responsible news outlets (and most American media outlets have handled them responsibly, IMO). Anyone remember the Tailwind fiasco? That’s what I’m talkin’ about.
Also, John S, this is a bizarre attitude:
Uhm. OK. I’ll let some muggers know you’re open for business then.
RTO Trainer
jg;
If all you did was read the stories and then give up when answers weren’t forthcoming then,
1) you haven’t been accused of anything (yet)
and 2) you didn’t open your mouth enough and thus let our contry go down this road, becasue you don’t have to allow yourself to be shouted down. (Now you’ve been accused of something.)
Mike S
There have been plenty of accounts from other places like Bagram(sp?) Gitmo and our “rendition” prisons.
The fact that it was reported by a soldier was of no surprise to me. The vast majority of them are good people doing the best job they can in a horrible situation.
gswift
Not just those. There’s others like the reports of prisoners dying while in our custody of causes like blunt force trauma, etc.
Of course the whistleblower is to be commended. What’s disturbing is that there HAD TO BE A WHISTLEBLOWER. I’m disturbed that this was almost certainly going on with tacit approval of those in command. I’m disturbed that it appears to go all the way to the top. I’m disturbed advisors to the President draw up memos saying we are not bound by the Geneva convention.
Mithi
Brad R, I think this:
is a bizarre attitude, though telling. In your mind, the only defense against aggresion is murder?
John S.
Ah, the inevitable – and predictable – responses to my post.
I’ll explain. Seeing as how I believe that at some point down the road we will all sit in judgment before G-d, I prefer to go with a clear conscience (or as clear of one as an imperfect human can have). Therefore, I am less interested in staying in this world if it means that I have screwed myself out of an opportunity in the next. It’s a just a matter of faith.
Defending yourself from a mugger doesn’t mean you have to kill them. I would have thought that was a fairly obvious distinction.
Brad R.
No, but “pacifist” implies he wouldn’t bother defending himself. I can’t imagine letting someone kill me just because I didn’t “want to live with blood on my hands.” And I’m not a right-wing wacko, btw :-)
Lines
Hey guys, John S is free to be a pacifist if that is what he believes. Stop being so judgemental. Would it make a difference if his religion called for him to be a pacifist (like Christianity, except he actually may be following his religion)? What he does with his life is up to him, not harming others seems to be a pretty good way to go through life, though, I would say. You all remember that thing called the “golden rule”, right?
And RTO Trainer, if you don’t want to believe an Iraqi General was smothered in a sleeping bag during a fun event of “sleeping bag laser tag”, thats up to you. Ignore the reports you don’t like and keep imagining that naked pyramids are the worst thing happening, if it helps you live your life the way you want to live it. Denial can be healthy, for some.
Brad R.
Defending yourself from a mugger doesn’t mean you have to kill them. I would have thought that was a fairly obvious distinction.
OK, let’s take it up a notch. You wouldn’t kill someone in self-defense? You’d literally let someone kill you?
Brad R.
Hey guys, John S is free to be a pacifist if that is what he believes. Stop being so judgemental. Would it make a difference if his religion called for him to be a pacifist (like Christianity, except he actually may be following his religion)? What he does with his life is up to him, not harming others seems to be a pretty good way to go through life, though, I would say. You all remember that thing called the “golden rule”, right?
Lines- yeah, I’m not saying he’s not FREE to be a pacifist, I’m just debating its wisdom. (Also I think it’s pretty unrealisitic.) And again, I’m not a pro-war gun-slingin’ 101st Fighting Keyboarder here. But I think killing in self-defense is entirely justified.
Mike S
I have to go and get ready for a trip. RTO, thanks for the honest, non-vitriolic debate. If you find yourself headed back to Iraq good luck and safe passage.
I’m off to London where I’ll be wearing my “Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos” shirt.
Brad R.
I’m off to London where I’ll be wearing my “Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos” shirt.
Dude, WTF? Don’t you remember what voting for third-party candidates got us in 2000??? ;-)
Lines
Brad R:
you do know about methods of disabling an oppenent and leaving the scene, right? You do know that killing, in any self defense situation, is usually about the last thing you want to do? I’m pretty well trained in a couple arts, plus I’m trained in handguns as well as a few other weapons, that just doesn’t mean I need to pull out the biggest in the arsenal and start killing in “self-defense” at the first indication of trouble.
RTO Trainer
Much as we’d wish otherwise, much as we strive to get there, ain’t never gonna be perfect.
Lines
Aim high by shooting low! Seems like a good strategy to keep congratualting yourself for improving above rock bottom.
Brad R.
Lines Says:
Brad R:
you do know about methods of disabling an oppenent and leaving the scene, right? You do know that killing, in any self defense situation, is usually about the last thing you want to do? I’m pretty well trained in a couple arts, plus I’m trained in handguns as well as a few other weapons, that just doesn’t mean I need to pull out the biggest in the arsenal and start killing in “self-defense” at the first indication of trouble.
Well, yeah. But what I took issue was his original statement, that he would rather be killed than live with blood on his hands. In that hypothetical, it seemed like we were talking about only two possibilities: kill or be killed. I’m just sayin’ that in that specific hypothetical, I’d feel no guilt about having blood on my hands.
John S.
Ok, one at a time…
The irony is I’m Jewish.
I would try to defend myself in the most non-lethal way possible, but if it came down to someone else killing me or me killing them, I’ll be the one to take death.
I didn’t think you were Brad. And remember, it isn’t a question of wisdom – it is a question of faith. Obviously, my choice is not a logical one from the standpoint of short-term survival. And I assure you it’s more than unrealistic – it’s damn near impossible. Turning the other cheek requires a person to defy their own humanity.
ImJohnGalt
As for coining the word hacktard,
you’re too late
Lines
John S.
what I meant was a snark against Christians in general, that they should be pacifists, since Jesus preached it more than just about anything else, except they seem to always be the ones invading other countries for revenge or calling for the assassination of foreign leaders.
I’m agnostic, so I’m more into the Golden Rule and not caring about fish on Friday.
RTO Trainer
I’m off to the ‘Stan sometime next year.
Yer welcome, and Thanks.
John S.
Lines-
Oh, I know what you were driving at. I am also infuriated by so-called Christians that profess their love of Jesus and yet have no fucking clue what the man stood for.
Going to church and waving a bible does not a Christian make, but that point has seemed to escaped the majority of the Christian right (which is why Republicans are toxic to me). Following the teachings of Jesus (especially the Golden Rule and the beatitudes) is what makes a Christian (i.e. follower of Jesus), and that’s why I stated the irony of my situation.
As far as I’m concerned, I’m a better Christian as a Jew than most Christians I see in the public forum.
John S.
Well, I will pray for your safe return.
I may not agree with your views, but I respect them – and you (unlike a lot of folks around here that I disagree with).
You are a class act, RTO.
jg
I never said I gave up. Its by continuing to ask the questions that I get labelled.
Bob In Pacifica
Initially the world could get some idea of civilian casualties and the kinds of wounds they suffered by monitoring people showing up at hospitals. At some point early in the war it was decided that this was bad press, you know, pictures of young’uns horribly scarred and missing limbs or women in shock carrying around dead baby corpses. So the U.S. began making sure that the hospitals were “secured” early on in any new combat operations to discourage those reports.
Do we have any idea how many civilians were burned or killed in Fallujah? Hell, no one’s counting here in America.
White Phosphorus? John Cole is still flogging the dead horse, and while it gives him an opportunity to yell some milder form of “traitor” at Kos, it’s really irrelevant. The people in Iraq know how many of their families have been killed or wounded or arrested or disappeared. They know when their electricity or water is off, they know when they can’t get fuel for their cars or heaters or generators. They know when their loved ones die. The vast majority want us out right now, and half of them think it’s morally just to shoot us. We are an occupying army. It’s been a big-time fuck up all around and it ain’t gonna get any better until we get out of there.
smijer
Most often riding the horse and spurring it on relentlessly… but in this case? I don’t know… Maybe they are so used to propaganda-created reality that they couldn’t tell the difference between it and the real thing when it was coming from the Italian media…
‘Course,, there remain unanswered questions, even after Gen. Pace made his clarifications…
And if being wrong about something important, and calling out a false alarm when you really think there is a fire is mud-dragging… well… I’ll sign up for a mud-dragger… More often than not with this particular pentagon, the smoke really means there is fire. So people who fail to put up the alarm when they see some smoke because they are afraid John Cole will accuse them of making the Baby Jesus cry… well… they are cowards.
Of course, everyone should do their best to get the best possible facts and come to the best possible conclusion – but we have to know the issue exists before we’ll be able to do that…
I do still have unanswered questions, and this administration has left me hopelessly cynical that we didn’t screw the pooch in any particular case.. but I haven’t seen anything that makes it certain to me that WP was used in an immoral and/or illegal way in Fallujah – at least no more illegal or immoral than the war itself is…
But, I’m tempted to fake being convinced of the opposite just so I can hear John Cole smear me as a troop hater.
rilkefan
John:
Perfect, thanks.
KC
In the zone of public discourse, I like that you were right John, 100% agree with you, but also appreciated the government not getting big time into the act. The issue is is that most people haven’t heard about the WP thing, most people don’t care. If the government were to start some big push back, that’d be the big story and it would eventually drown into the ethics of WP use, etc. I’d rather let the issue pass and let the army have what it needs to do its job without the hollering and name calling now.
smijer
President Bush, is that you? Shoot first, figure out the ethics of it later? Sounds familiar. Let’s drown the morality debate until we’ve gotten our way… then, and only then, do we have a right to worry about little things like whether what we were doing was human or inhuman.
jg
I’d prefer that we’d stormed the place with our flagging waving high rather than try this ridculous idea of taking over a country without causing damage or upsetting any sensitive types by showing our colors. The Brits didn’t conquer the world by winning hearts and minds. The idea of invading without ‘invading’, occupying without ‘occupying’ and imposing a new government while saying we aren’t going force you to do it our way is crap.
smijer
jg – that’s the problem of trying to be a wolf and walk around in sheep’s clothing.
KC
smijer, I understand the problem with WP use, I do. It looks bad and sounds bad. However, John’s right, it is legal and part of our arsenal. Like John, I got upset when I saw Kos and others running like blind pigs to lettuce screaming about chemical weapons etc. The bottom line for me is that no matter what we do our troops are in Iraq trying to do the best job they can. Hollering about war atrocities etc. when 1) we don’t know if they actually committed any and 2) they used a weapon that was/isn’t against the law is a useless exercise in peevishness and stupidity. I don’t like this war, I was pretty much against it from the beginning; however, I recognize our guys are there doing the job that was given to them to the best of their ability. They don’t need people on the left calling them war criminals now, especially if they’re not.
TallDave
Geez, from the Pentagon’s lack of response, you’d think they were busy fighting a war or something.
demimondian
Where were the Pentagon and the White House? Do you really need an answer to that question, John?
They were running around pretending that everything was going just as well at home as they are pretending it is back in Iraq. They were coming up with a new strategery that’s the same as their old strategery. They were figuring out ways to impugn the patriotism of the Congress for having the temerity to *dare* to question the conduct and goals of the war. You know — for doing their jobs?
The White House and the Pentagon are seriously out of touch with reality. They could have put this down in a short time by simply pointing a few things out about the “pictures”. Instead, they were busy planning their next propaganda offensive against the enemies of the state here at home.
rosoe k
Lying anti-American turds*
*or “Kos” for short.
TallDave
jg,
We’re not trying to conquer the world, nor should we. We’re trying to civilize it, for the betterment of everyone, including ourselves, who will be made safer by this effort.
I don’t think very many people understand how uncommon anything other than rule by the most ruthless and powerful men actually is historically. The United States’ creation of a society in which soldiers and politicians did not strive to become dictators but instead strove to defend a democratic ideal was an accomplishment whose importance was matched only by its improbability. We who bask in the banal comfort of this inherited bliss rarely appreciate how incredible a gift our situation is.
jg
TD are you under the impression I’m in kindergarten?
Since when do conservatives follow a leader who crusades to change the world? I thought liberals wanted that.
Paddy O'Shea
Cool. John just thinks he won the battle.
Meanwhile the rest of us are pretty sure General Georgie has lost the entire war.
TallDave
TD are you under the impression I’m in kindergarten?
Occasionally.
Since when do conservatives follow a leader who crusades to change the world? I thought liberals wanted that.
Ironic, isn’t it? Classical liberals are now called “conservatives.” Notice the paleocons want nothing to wo with this effort. But they mostly never believed the Soviet Union could be democratized, either, and many campaigned against even trying.
TallDave
To be sure, though, if Hillary Clinton ran on a platform of spreading democracy and the GOP candidate ran on a platform of maintaining the status quo, the definitions would quickly reverse themselves again. It’s just the polarizing nature of our politics.
And I would vote for her.
smijer
No argument so far, though that only addresses part of the question. At the end of WWII, nukes were legal and part of our arsenal. The bigger question is should it be legal, should it be legal as an antipersonnel round, and should it be legal as an antipersonnel round in areas of dense civilian population.
It’s not like they didn’t believe it was true… And yeah if it was true, as they believed, then it is something to scream about…
Their only crime was being insufficiently skeptical of the evidence… And the fact that this administration does more that is immoral than is moral doesn’t help build a lot of skepticism about whether it will use the same weapons that it invaded Iraq for supposedly having.
If they turn out to be wrong (and on some points, they have),then they should issue a correction… but seriously, how many high stakes bloggers do that? We bitch when the MSM fails to do it, or buries their correction, but very few of us are willing to do it ourselves. That doesn’t turn Kos from an honorably discharged service member into a troop hater.
Even if they sincerely believe that atrocities were committed (actually, we know that atrocitis were committed – we just don’t know for sure about the particular allegations).
This is virtually irrelevant… If napalm weren’t against the law… if Agent Orange weren’t against the law – that wouldn’t still make their use a non-issue.
Peevishness and stupidity is reacting to it by throwing the troops in front of the incoming bullets of criticism so that the responsible parties are shielded from it.
If by “our guys”, you mean the ones actually taking the bullets and returning fire… I agree… If you mean the brass, or the government… I call bullshit – WP or no.
If you are talking about “our guys” in the sense of the soldiers on the lines, then you are blowing up the same straw man that JC has been trampling on… Anybody concerned about WP hates the troops… and that’s bullshit.
If you are talking about “our guys” in the sense of Don Rumsfeld, Bush, or the military brass… well, they are big boys. They can take the hits, and if they didn’t do anything wrong, then they will be vindicated.
smijer
So, I assume you voted for Al Gore in 2000?
I’ll just be glad when politicians start figuring out that “spreading democracy” is work, and has little or nothing to do with starting bullshit wars.
stickler
Yeah. We’re “civilizing” Iraq — with WP, HE, “shock and awe,” and daisy cutters. Judas freaking Priest.
This has been the rationale for every empire since the Persians. The French version was called the mission civilatrice. It always sounds great back home. “Take up the white man’s burden / send forth the best ye breed…”
It often seems hypocritical in the
colonizednewly civilized areas, though. And even if you are bringing an improvement in living conditions, you’re likely to be seen as a conqueror by the ungrateful locals.TallDave
stickler,
We’re “civilizing” Iraq—with WP, HE, “shock and awe,” and daisy cutters. Judas freaking Priest.
The process of civilizing necessarily begins with the forcible removal/subjugation of those that violently resist it. It was thus in Germany and Japan as well.
This has been the rationale for every empire since the Persians.
Perhaps, but very few went around democratizing and making sovereign their subjugated foes. Those empires were themselves generally ruled by the most ruthless and powerful men.
smijer
Also still true today… at least judging by the evidence of our actions, rather than the evidence of our rhetoric.
John S.
Classical liberalism (non-Dave version) is little more than economic liberalism in a different wrapper. It is the ultimate proponent of laissez-faire capitalism and free trade. The fact that you think classical liberalism advocates military intervention to promote democracy makes it clear that it is a topic on which you know little.
You should stick to what you know – whatever the hell that is.
Bruce Moomaw
Pike: “The U.S. government only compounded the problem by denying that WP had been used in Fallouja for anything other than illuminating the battlefield. The government flatly rejected the charge that it had been used to burn enemy combatants. This claim, however, was untrue and easily disproved. An Army Field Artillery magazine article written earlier this year by soldiers who had fired the artillery in Fallouja described ‘shake and bake’ missions — cannons firing WP incendiary rounds along with high-explosive shells to flush out insurgents from trenches and hiding places.
“As usual, it is the coverup that gets you into trouble. The guilty flee where none pursueth, but the righteous are bold as a lion.”
OK. So why DID the government, as Pike says, initially issue such an “untrue and easily disproved” denial? Simple ineptitude (which admittedly is perfectly plausible with this crew), or were they issuing a very sweeping denial to try to discourage further prying into whether they really have been using it in inappropriate ways (which is also perfectly plausible with this crew)? Pike provides one obvious possible explanation: firing artillery shells stuffed with WP into places next to “concentrations of civilians” may not be illegal for us, but it’s not the sort of thing that will make us more popular with the citizens of Iraq.
The trouble with this administration is that it’s especially hard to separate incompetence from deliberate dishonesty: there’s so much of both.
ppGaz
Bwaaaaaaaaahahahahaha!
Of course you would!
BIRDZILLA
Let the whole dman world go to hell in a handbasket i mean the whole world is buying into this whole hogwash spread by the liberal left-wing news media
RTO Trainer
You really think that was reality? I couldn’t find anything in it that I could say for certian was what they claimed or implied it to be.
RTO Trainer
How about just not issuing statements until someone in the press asked a question. Otherwise how it look?
Jack Burton
Coming from the end of the spectrum that believes that much of this stuff is anti-American, I’ll tell you why I feel that way. I have no illusions of what many of you think of me for my feelings, but you might as well hear exactly why I feel the way I do.
First, the torture stuff. Obviously tortured happended, to what level is debatable. I’m pretty sure the Geneva Convention offers no protection to non-uniformed combatants so it really bothers me when liberals throw around the Geneva Convention (someone did so on this thread) when it offers, and they deserve, nothing. People who drive bombs into crowds of children should never be accorded the protections offered by the Geneva Convention, ever. Call it neanderthal or whatever insults you choose, but I do not believe in turning the other cheek or rising above people’s ideology that would lead them to blow up a car in a crowd of children. I think we all to often try to project our morals and national character on people who have none of either and expect them to behave in a civilized manner. Also, we seem to base an awful lot of our “facts” from the terrorists themselves. When an AQ terrorists, claims they were tortured, my first thought is always back to the training manuals that we have that tells them to do just that. I’m sorry, but a terrorist’s words such warrant a high level of scrutiny, but many here seem to take what they say as gospel. One of them says that Koran was flushed down the toilet, the media reports it, muslims riot and kill, and ultimately we find the story was total bullshit. No apologies, no increased scrutiny the next time someone starts complaining, just back to the starting point that the Pentagon and our soldiers are lying. In the burning bodies incident, one of the mainstream media outlets actually quoted a taliban spokesman. It would have made me laugh except for the realization that so many here will take his word as the absolute truth.
Two, stories like the WP deal. First, a story about WP use is released by a blatanty anti-American organization with some very dubious facts including either faked or completely non-relevant pictures of dead people in it to back up their claims of WP use. The pictures and their relevance to the story was basically a complete lie, yet it took off. Adding fuel to the fire was a large number of people who had 1)absolutely no idea what WP injuries looked like and 2) absolutely no clue as to the weapons used by our soldiers in everyday combat. So we have a non-story using fake pictures of dead people as “facts” and here we are talking about it, for the umpteenth time. Why are some people so eager to perpetuate damning stories about the US without doing the slightest bit of fact checking? What do you think those on the right side of the aisle should think about stories like this and the resulting uninformed bandwagon of half-truths and outright lies?
Imagine I have a neighbor who I’ve many stories about, mostly good, but some bad. Now imagine that I take every bad story, spread it, analyze it and basically ride it until the wheels fall off. Did I do it because I love him and can’t stand to see him making bad choices and want him to improve? Did I do it because it’s my duty as a member of the neighborhood to police his behavior? Or did I do it because I hate him? Imagine the story that I heard came from someone who has been caught slandering the neighbor in the past. Now what does that make me?
I’ll be honest, and I’m sure it’s the same way right back at me – much of what I hear and read absolutely disgusts me. I know this country has problems and I also think Bush is generally a moron, but to me he’s was the best option for both elections. I remember that probably the most honorable Democrat (or Republican, for that matter) candidate Joe Lieberman got about 5 votes more than me in the primaries, and I didn’t run.
Oh well, one guys opinion. Fire away.
demimondian
How about just not issuing statements until someone in the press asked a question. Otherwise how [would] it look?Sadly, that doesn’t fly. The press did ask questions — the State Department spokestype was answering a question.
RTO Trainer
Because someone at State was asked and instead of refering teh question to Defense, as they should have, or at least reasearching the issue, they made up an answer so tehy didnt’ have to say “I don’t know.” Greatest single mistake anyone can make in dealing with teh press/public. One that we as Soldiers are counseled against over and over by our PAO reps. “Keep in your lane. Don’t try to sound bigger than you are. Don’t offer conjecture as an answer.”
RTO Trainer
That was last year when this story first came up (and quickly died).
Go look here. See the note at the bottom of hte page that was added 10 November. It took 11 months and a day to even find out they’d been wrong and make a correction. Would have taken 11 minutes witha phone call to another office.
smijer
Your government is not your neighbor. It is your representative. Your surrogate… You give your neighbor the benefit of the doubt… you don’t do yourself the same favor – you hold yourself to the highest standard of conduct – and if there is a question, instead of shying away from it, you do the hard thing, open up yourself to the introspection necessary, and if something is wrong, you fix it.
I don’t have any sympathy for those who actually target children.
In fact, I don’t even have much sympathy for those who give the order to drop the bomb from the air and kill children because it’s too hard for them to avoid it while still killing their military target, and they’ll be goddamned if they are not going to kill their military target. U.N. approval or not… Imminent threat or not… enough info to confirm our suspicions from the intelligence community or not…
Of course, how we treat prisoners (and chances are – if they are prisoners, they didn’t explode a suicide belt in a mall full of children – duh) doesn’t have anything to do with what they may or may not deserve based on our suspicions. It has to do with what we have the moral standing to do with them… And that is nothing more and nothing less than to do our best to see that justice is done. Justice doesn’t involve torture. Justice will never require us to break American law on torture, create CIA exemptions on torture, violate international treaties on torture.
However, if we care so little about justice that we are willing to engage in torture because we suspect our enemies of being subhuman, or because they – like us – are controlled by their fear and their rage, and because they – like us – have no more thought or care for life than to strike out at “the enemy” with violence as a first resort… then truly we are no better than they.
demimondian
RTO — as a sometime PR interface, I can only tell you that it is unbe-fucking-lievably hard to stay on message 24×7. I’ve only screwed up once in my career, but…well, let’s just say that the debrief afterwards was not a pleasant experience.
So I have a lot of sympathy for the spokestype.
gswift
But that’s the problem. This administration isn’t striving for it at all. The methods seem to have had the approval from the chain of command. Rather than striving to avoid the torture of prisoners, this bunch has actively tried to justify it. It’s wrong on every level.
gswift
I’ll say it again. Tortuning prisoners is wrong in every way. It’s morally wrong, and it’s not even practical. When we engage in torture, we have failed on every level.
Ah yes, if we don’t torture prisoners, then the terrorists have won.
These facts are being reported by our own people. Soldiers, FBI agents, etc.
The Comish (sic)
gswift:
If torturing prisoners is wrong in every way, then what about our soldiers killing other soldiers? Is that also “wrong in every way”? Because if making someone stand in an uncomfortable position is “torture,” and if depriving someone of sleep is “torture,” then 1) we’re already torturing enemy combatants on the field of battle, and 2) we’re doing much worse than that with bullets and bombs.
As for torture’s practicality, I see this meme bandied about pretty frequently. Do any of you have any evidence that torture does not work? Or that it’s less effective than other interrogation techniques? If so, I’d be interested to see that, please.
gswift:
And in every case in which torture actually occured, the soldier or other offending party is punished.
Those of you arguing that the government and military support torture are either gullible or you’re selling something.
smijer
Tell that to Dick Cheney. Or, for that matter, to Jack Burton.
Jack Burton
Smijer,
I appreciate your response, but I disagree. I noticed you changed my statement to allegedly driving cars into crowds of children. I wasn’t aware that was a debate until now. I assume someone believes that’s another lie by our military?
Civilian deaths in combat will always occur. Our military probably does a superior job of avoiding them than any other force that has ever existed. If I had to guess, I’d say that probably over 25% of all our military deaths are due to restrictive rules of engagement or operational rules. In some units, probably twice that. The men and women of our armed forces have laid it on the line since the beginning, make huge sacrifices and sometimes give their lives in service of this Country. I cannot so carelessy throw away their lives just so we can have an antiseptic war and sleep easy at night. Would you sacrifice 1,000 soldiers to Falluja just to be sure the only people killed were the enemy, because without armor, artillery and heavy weaponry, that’s probably what it would cost. Not to mention that the clearing of Falluja was probably the most well anticipated military action of all time. It’s not like we just started carpet bombing the city without advance warning. Those wheels were set in motion the day two charred bodies swung from a bridge on the western side of the city.
I think I understand your version of justice and morals, but quite frankly I don’t feel the same way you do. For far too long a large segment of our country has viewed the world through the prism of our society, rule of law and basic human rights. The people that we are hunting do not, so let’s not make the mistake of assuming that they adhere to the same things we do. Somewhere out there are people who orchestrated the murder of 3,000 innocent people on 9-11 and I will not shed a tear for their well being if they are captured. Simply put, I refuse to advocate fighting monsters with both hands tied behind our backs. And yes, they are monsters and I do feel it is well within my rights as a decent human being to call them what they clearly are.
I’ve thought a little more about why sites like kos really anger me. It’s because if there’s some kind of sensational story out there that puts the military or the US in general in a bad light, I’ll find it repeated there. When is the last time a front page item was about something we do well, or a celebration about what’s good with this country? Full-time cynics and critics typically get that way for one of two reasons, they don’t have ideas of their own or they don’t have the talent to do it better. That obviously doesn’t apply to everyone there, but it does to many.
I appreciate your convictions. I don’t agree with them, but there is honor in clearly stating what you believe in and standing behind it.
smijer
Jack – check back tomorrow afternoon… I can’t respond now, but I don’t want to leave this hanging.
RTO Trainer
>Groan
RTO Trainer
Hey. I screwed up in another thread right here on Balloon Juice, talking out of my lane. I was lucky and was corrected quickly.
Jack Burton
Gswift,
I know this will sound just absolutely unbelievable to you, but you alone do not define what is right and wrong in this world. You do not have the final say over devine rights and wrongs. The arrogance of such an assumption is breathtaking. It is your belief that torture is wrong, but that is just your opinion and by no means some kind of absolute.
If torturing a terrorist leads to information that stops an attack that would harm my family, I just don’t find that so abhorent. What I do find disgusting is that some coward would strike at this country killing thousands of innocents for no reason other than they woke up that morning in the United States. Justice and basic human rights, to me, are reserved for those who respect the concept. To those who don’t, to those who would equate the murder of women and children to religious paradise, I will just flaty disagree with your attempt at speaking as tasked by the Almighty himself.
If you decide to trash me, I want you to state your position on abortion along with it. Because believe it or not, there’s a large percentage of people in this country who absolutely believe that there is no basis, ever, to do so – probably more than your feelings about torture. If you are in favor of abortion rights, do your dispute their claim that abortion “is wrong in every way. It’s morally wrong”.
I’m not trying to start an abortion debate, but merely point out that you alone do not have all the right answers.
RTO Trainer
The effectiveness of torture depends on what the torturer wishes to accomplish.
Do you wish to gain high value, accurate intelligence quickly? You might get it. You probably won’t.
Do you wish to “break” the subject and make them compliant? It’ll work, in time.
Do you wish to punish the subject. You will get what you
want.
As an adjunct to interrogation, torture can only be effective if it is used to speed the empathy between the subject and an interrogator who is separate and distinct from the torturer. The interrogator will be the one who gets the torture to stop. It’s an intense version of “good cop, bad cop.”
All effective interrogation is a matter of establishing empathy between the interrogator and the subject. Torture, it is thought, speeds that empathy building up. It depends. Every subject is different.
No one tells the guy with the electrodes the truth, last season’s 24 notwithstanding. A torturer without an interrogator is just a sadist.
Treating subjects humanely may take time to work (and may not) but the quality of the information is generally better and the information sharing relationship will last longer. Torture has a boomerang effect. Eventually the subject realizes what has happend, what he’s done and remorse settles in.
My sources for this information are a number of people who have attended SEAR school, Army FM 54-32 and SEN McCain’s book.
RTO Trainer
Hey. Jack Burton never drives faster than he can see.
Jack Burton
Well, if it’s a nuke I’ll feel a tab bit better if he’s the one that’s remorseful and not us. Not being glib here, just honest.
Jack Burton
RTO,
It’s all in the reflexes.
Jack Burton
Two friggin years and you’re the first person to get the name. What the hell is wrong with you people?
John S.
Hmmm. Smells like big trouble to me.
Jack Burton
that’s what I’m talking about
gswift
Give me a break. Soldiers killing each other in combat isn’t even close to the same thing as torturing a prisoner. If you think the worst we’ve done to prisoners is sleep devprivation, you haven’t been following this issue at all.
One of the best articles on this can be found here. The evidence comes from our own field agents.
gswift
Groan away. I must be imagining Bush’s threat to veto McCain’s measure that would prohibit cruel and inhumane treatment of prisoners.
gswift
I largely agree with this. It’s one of the main reasons I think we should never have gone into Iraq.
gswift
Try not too swoon. Torture is wrong. I’ll get the smelling salts.
That’s a rather big if. It just so happens that the evidence for that “if” appears not to exist.
No other reason? You don’t think it’s maybe a tad more complex than that?
Jack Burton
Ah Swift, did you ever consider that we don’t know all the terrorist plots that have been stopped? I know, call me crazy, but it’s entirely possible they actually keep some of that stuff quiet to either not give away what we know to the rest of the idiots or to not scare the natives. Either way, I’m actually humble enough to acknowledge there’s much going on that I didn’t, don’t, and won’t ever know. You should try that out some times.
As for the complexity of the terrorists attacks, I try not to spending my days reading too much into the actions of the devil. It’s funny how you don’t appear to view those attacks in the same black and white manner you look at torture allegations by our troops. But maybe it’s more complex than that. Huh.
smijer
JackBurton
No, the reason I corrected your statement is not because there is a doubt about whether it has occurred, but because the people being detained are only suspected of it – not convicted. And that’s generous… Really the suspicion that any particular Iraqi detainee has committed a terrorist act is your suspicion from half a world away. Unless you’ve filed FOIA requests and read what each one was suspected of and why they were picked up.
Your argument rests on the idea that someone who would do that has no rights, but it doesn’t apply because we don’t know if the people whose rights were violated would do that.
Well, I appreciate your guesswork, but I don’t put much stock in guesswork like that. I have no number to pull out of my ass to say how many “extra” soldiers died or were saved by the rules of engagement. What I can say is that this is the biggest reason never to start wars, unless it is to answer an on-going atrocity that exceeds the atrocious effects of war or to defend against a grave and imminent threat – because wars cannot be fought justly or safely.
There is no algebra of war. How many civilian lives is worth one military life? How can anyone even ask questions like that? Here’s one for you: how many enemy soldiers’ lives would be worth the lives would it be worth to make sure they didn’t kill your wife and kids? The people you go to church with? Here’s another question: What percentage, in this war or any other, of the people who died were fighters who voluntarily put their life on the line, versus draftees who put their life on the line because they were made to do so, versus people who wanted no part in the fight?
The simple fact is that war is costly and that we have a responsibility to avoid civilian deaths as well as we can – particularly when the war was our choice. If we feel the price is too steep, that fighting responsibly is too much of a burden on the lives of our soldiers, then we have the option of not choosing war.
I think if the people who actually gave the orders to go to war had to bear a part of the price of it – as in the olden days when the belligerent parties actually had to come to the battlefield, then we would see a much more sober assessment of the need for war versus the cost. This war wouldn’t have happened.
That’s a kind of chilling statement to hear made. I don’t think that one can have a commitment to rule of law and to basic human rights, yet feel that it is good enough for himself and not for the rest of the world.
If the options are to become monsters, or to be beaten by monsters, then the monsters win either way. If the human race is incapable of what we call “humanity”, then let’s just suck it up and be dog-eat-dog nihilists.
I’m more optimistic than that. I think most of us, when we have our bellies full, and we aren’t living constantly with fear and anger, are fully capable of seeing the humanity in our enemies and behaving as such. I think for every bin Laden and every Zarqawi, there are hundreds of thousands of people, given the right circumstances, would avoid cruelty and violence as the first resort against an occupying force, if we – the occupiers and the Iraqi government – were smart enough to create those circumstances. If we were smart enough to bring people like bin Laden and Zarqawi to justice without unnecessarily destroying lives, families, and the economies of the people who live there, too. If we were smart enough to do it without behaving like them. The Iraqi people are just like the rest of us… given a choice between two monsters, and no hope for an outcome that doesn’t involve terrible cruelty… they’ll stick with the devil they know; but given a chance to rise above the tactics of torture, war, and terrorism, they’ll grab it – and they will help us in bringing the bad guys to justice.
Well, actually, they are not monsters. They are human beings who do terrible things. Just like the human beings in Nazi Germany… Take any Joe Sixpack from today and put them in Nazi Germany – they will behave like the Nazis did. Most will comply, some will aid, and a few will resist – depending on how well they understand human nature, how much prior commitment they had for human rights and the rule of law, for me, and for thee, and a small variety of other factors.
“Monster” is just a metaphor – it tells us more about how we look at them than it does about what they are.
Yeah – it isn’t like we have a national holiday to celebrate the good things in this country… It’s not like we heap praise on ourselves and our countrymen who do honestly good work, from the “Let’s Roll” guy on the airplane to the guy who goes out on the weekend to build houses for Habitat.
The fact is, we do the right thing, by appreciating the policeman, the ambulance driver, the fireman, the teacher, and the soldier for their sacrifices to make our country better. We demand raises for them. We contribute to their benevolence funds. We hold them in high esteem. We have national holidays for our national heroes.. Washington, Lincon, King, our veterans, those who have fallen…
We also go beyond that… we congratulate ourselves on how wonderful we are. We think we are a terribly generous nation and we never glance around to see what the rest of the world is doing “right”, even when their generosity exceeds our own.
But a better answer to your comment comes from Delbert Tibbs, after he was spared the death penalty when he was exonerated of the crimes he for which he was wrongly accused and sentenced:
That’s what I’m talking about.
gswift
That must be it. Torture is stopping reams of terrorist plots. It’s just that we don’t hear about ANY of it. It’s so successful out own intel and military guys are against it.
Well of course. Why waste your precious time studying your enemies when you could be striding around thumping your chest repeating words like “evil” and “devil.”
Oh fuck off. I implied no such thing. The point is there’s reaons why people do things. They have motivations. They’re not always rational or correct. But to simply assert paople attack us “for no reason other than they woke up that morning in the United States.” is just stupid.
Cyrus
Actually, I don’t think negatively of you for your feelings in this. I don’t happen to share them, but your feelings are yours, and there is a lot of room to debate the philosophy and ethics of the past five years.
I don’t think less of you for your feelings, but I think one hell of a lot less of you for your facts. That’s what drives me nuts about this ongoing debate about torture. (Sorry, I’ll call it “prisoner abuse” for the people who focus on the word torture, pick apart whether one particular incident was in fact torture, and ignore the rest.) All the pro-torture arguments completely ignore the actual, you know, facts about who is getting abused, and how and why. See, your ideals are fine, if a bit more “eye for an eye” than I’d use personally, but they bear no relation to the real world. To use your above example, did any of the torture victims drive bombs into crowds of children? And take a reality check for once – how would you torture a suicide bomber in the first place? Torture terrorists, fine, but when hundreds have been released from Abu Ghraib and Gitmo with no charges filed, when some of the victims were known to have nothing to do with terrorism before they were abused, when the President’s legal counsel and current Attorney General writes memos saying that he can ignore law at will, why the hell do you still give the government the benefit of the doubt?
Joe Darby, the soldier who turned over the photos that shed light on Abu Ghraib. (Photos!) Ian Fishback, the soldier who wrote a letter to McCain exposing some of the abuses at another prison in Iraq. James Yee, the Muslim chaplain at Guantanamo Bay who spent 76 days in a cell on charges of espionage before all charges were dropped and replaced with charges of having porn on his Army laptop – who, by a complete coincidence I’m sure, also had complained about how detainees were treated. Are they all members of Al Qaeda? Are the pictures Photoshopped? The people in Abu Ghraib who were arrested on charges of assault and even car theft and wound up getting abused, do you know have access to state secrets proving that they too were members of Al Qaeda? Or is what they’re saying false just because bad people also say the same thing? (No word yet on whether bin Laden believes the world is round. If he does, look out.)
Support torture in the abstract – fine. Support torture of accused car thieves – you’re a sick bastard.
Jack Burton
Cyrus, never once have I insinuated that I approve of torture for common criminals. If I didn’t make that clear, my fault. Also, I assume there’s some fact about the Geneva Convention and it’s application to non-uniformed combatants that I had wrong. If you refuted what I said, I missed it.
gwift,
“Oh fuck off. I implied no such thing. The point is there’s reaons why people do things. They have motivations. They’re not always rational or correct.” Ah, I see, you’re willing to state that for terrorists, but not for the folks at Abu Garhib, for instance. Torture is morallly wrong without exception, but I would like to undertand a little more about why terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Center? All I need to know about you is right there in that quote.
Smijer,
You have more faith in the common man regardless of culture. I don’t, but ultimately, I hope you are right and not me.
Lots of fans today.
RTO Trainer
You aren’t.
But I do think you attribute motive without evidence.
A veto is not a vote in favor of torture, its a strike (rightly) against silly laws.
What does the McCain amendment do? 1) it attaches allowed be havior to an Army Field manual and 2) it makes something that is alrealdy illegal, illegal (illegaler?–I don’t think so.)
When the FM is updated then what? What about measuers and techniques that no one would consider torture, but are not included in the FM–they are prohibited.
If McCain and the Congress want to spend time on this issue, they’d be much better served (and so would we who will be expressly bound by it) to actually formulate a clear standard. What is torture? What is not torture? Apply this test and get an answer.
Until then any legislation is meaningless.
It’s just bad law.
Jack Burton
I think one of the things that results in a lot of confusion and anomosity towards my point of view is there a lot of things that we do that I’ve heard referred to as torture that simply is not, in my opinion. It is these things that I have no problem with, and most likely some very clear definitions here, and operationally, would help everyone.
Rap music, don’t think so. Uncomfortable position, maybe, depending on what it is. Having women interrogate you because it’s an afront to your culture, too bad. Being denied religious materials, religious meals and access to prayer, too damn bad. Prisoners in the US don’t get coddled to be sure every cultural desire of their is provided and I sure don’t feel like those captured on the battlefield should be treated any differently, or better.
Electroshock, bamboo under the finger nails, beatings, etc. Yes, that is clearly torture and I don’t condone that, ever. I understand, that out of anger of having seen your friends die it’s probably happended. I, unlike many, can’t comment on that. I wasn’t there, didn’t feel the fear and anger and whatever else clouds your soul in a war zone, so I don’t feel I’m qualified to condemn those who’s experiences are very unlike 99% of the people on this board.
RTO Trainer
ALCON;
The GC do not offer any protections to those who do not meet the definitions of Prisoner of War, or of Civilian (non-combatant). It also makes no provisions for any persons who don’t meet either definition.
That said, the UCMJ does and has always applied the 3rd General Article of the 4th Convention to all persons as a minimum standard regardless of classification, including no classification (illegal combatant or detainee).
Cyrus
Nice to hear. But when you support the administration uncritically on this issue and common criminals make up half or more* of the abuse victims, I feel entirely justified in believing it.
I didn’t refute what you said. I don’t think the Geneva Convention does apply to non-uniformed combatants. (From what little I’ve seen, I’m not sure it says one way or the other. Absence of the phrase “this applies to non-uniformed fighters” is not proof of “go wild”. But anyway.) It does, however, apply to the United States. Despite what the administration wants. Their stance on Geneva is tied to prisoner abuse only indirectly, but even if it were completely seperate, it is indefensible.
Fine. You’ll notice I tried to avoid using the word “torture”, instead going with “abuse”. You’re right, some of what gets called “torture” isn’t, but focusing on that is just weaseling out of the issue. That doesn’t mean it is or should be acceptable either. Can prison guards in civilian prisons do whatever they want to inmates, no questions asked, as long as it does not cause “physical pain on a par with death or organ failure” or whatever the administration’s preferred definition of “torture” was? They sure as hell can’t. Prisons aren’t parks and they shouldn’t be and very few people would argue otherwise, but there are still ethical and legal standards of what authority figures can do to prisoners, and those standards stop long before torture.
Here’s a wild-and-crazy, leftist wacko standard: no sadism. No torture ever, and if the million-to-one ticking time bomb scenario actually happens the torturer can get an official pardon. Stress positions if and only if they are actually needed for interrogation and only to the limits needed, with oversight and review, not unlike actual criminal interrogations. Soaking prisoners and leaving them outside overnight for fun? Jail time.
*I don’t know if any comprehensive study of this exists, and I definitely don’t have time to look for one right now. But of 26 major victims at Abu Ghraib, 13 were common criminals and 8 were accused of terrorism-related activities but later ordered to be released with no charges filed. Considering other reports from prisons, such as hundreds having been released with no charges filed, I assume that is close to representative.
Jack Burton
Cyrus,
I would tend to agree with what you’ve said here, except for one thing – I do not support the administration uncritically. Knowing what we know now, we shouldn’t have invaded, unless our doctrine is now to get every human rights abuser on this planet. In that case, take a number and wait for our troops to show up because it’s a long list indeed. Hell, we could round up quite a few of them just by staking out the UN’s commission on human rights. Having said that, we did, and we have to deal with the reality that we’re there.
And as you have probably guesses, my allegiance is by far with the soldiers who fight and other things are honestly secondary to me. I’m from a military family with a brother still active with possiblity of heading to Iraq and his and everyone who wears the uniform’s protection and well being is what I spend my time worrying about. It’s not the typically liberal global view, but that’s just the way it is for me.
gswift
I’m not inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to either one. I think giving the benefit of the doubt to the perpetrators of Abu Ghraib does a huge disservice to soldiers in general. I think it gives the impression that our military is made up of guys who are one traumatic experience away from sticking a glowstick up someones ass.
We should all want to understand our enemies better. It’ll help us fight more effectively. This administration shows a similar lack of interest, and so they do stupid shit like pour hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives into invasions that do nothing to fight terrorism or further our national security interests.
gswift
But it’s not just the amendment. It’s other policies like the flying of prisoners to Egypt, Jordan, and Syria.
I’m admittedly not that familiar with the amendment. It’s just that it seems to me that the charge against it is being led by administration guys with 0 military and/or field experience, and that there’s a lot of high level military and CIA guys arguing against the loophole for the CIA. It reminds me of the whole Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz vs. Shinseki debacle with regard to troop estimates. Not promising.
No Oil for Pacifists
John:
I appreciate your attention to this story from the start. I’ve posted a summary–but I agree that the Administration was “too little, too late” in refuting the claims. I understand the State Department’s gotta-make-sure-I’m-invited-to-the-next-Embassy-cocktail-party mind-set, but why didn’t DoD take the lead earlier?