Rick Moran has had enough when it comes to the abuse/torture cases, and he is shrill. Well, good for him. And I don’t mean that sarcastically.
And to be perfectly honest, Rick is giving me far too much credit. I haven’t been out in front of this issue at all, and I ignored a lot of smart people, looked the other way, and made excuses all the way to my tipping point, which just happened to come a few months before Rick. I don’t deserve any credit- I was part of the problem. My friends on the left would say my continued support for the war is problematic, but we will just have to agree to disagree.
It is one thing to support this war, something I still do- and something that right now we really don’t have much choice, as we are there and not going anywhere. It is another thing to blindly support everything that is going on. Right now, there is too much of the latter happening.
What has happened in these cases needs to be examined thoroughly and it needs to be done now. And it needs to be done without excuse-making (‘this is war, these things happen’), it needs to be done without any preconceptions (‘there is no policy, this is just a few bad apples’), it needs to be done without lame attempts to blame the victims (‘you can’t trust them- they are terrorists and trained to lie,’ because as it turns out, in a number of cases they haven’t been terrorists at all), it needs to be done without lame and exasperating equivalency arguments (‘things are still better than when Saddam or the Taliban were in charge’), and it needs to be done without blaming the media for the unforgivable sin of reporting our failings.
It may not be the case that this abuse is widespread and rampant. It may not be the result of actual policy or have occurred by design. That matters not- it happened, people are dead, people have been (if we are to believe the reports) raped and sodomized, people have been beaten, and if it happened these several times, I am willing to bet it happened much more frequently than has been reported.
And all of it has been done in our name. There is a problem, and it is not clear if this administration intends to address it openly and honestly. As it stands, the administration continues to block the attempts to ban hiding prisoners from the Red Cross, as well as other straight-forward measures. If even that is problematic for this administration, it is safe to say things have gone awry.
And it does not inspire confidence that the only way this administration believes it can effectively wage a war on terrorism is to maintain its ability to keep detainees and their treatment hidden away from the resto of the world. It doesn’t inspire confidence at all.
Jimmy Jazz
I’m not sure I’m reading the italicized part the way you meant it, but I submit it matters a great deal. There is not only an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest widespread abuses have occured. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest that this was a defined policy of the United States which began at the very top and involved the direct participation of the President, the VP, the now-Attorney General, and the SecDef. Everything I have seen suggests that this group decided that anyone they felt like disappearing would be disappeared, anyone they felt like torturing would be tortured, anyone they felt shouldn’t receive the protection of Geneva and other international law (and the laws of this country, and the UCMJ) would not receive it, and would become “non persons” subject to any whim of the executive branch.
That is not the behavior of a democracy it is the behavior of a Pinochet-like tinpot dictator. John, you’re part of the way there but you are not yet prepared to admit just how horribly this administration has subverted the democratic process itself. I think it is becoming more and more difficult for you to dismiss that argument. As much as I despised Bush and how he acted as soon as he came into office, it took awhile even for me to face the depths of it myself.
JWeidner
I’d like to whoop and holler about people seeing the light, but one, it’s mean spirited, and two, it’s just too damn sad that our country has stooped to the level of some of the world’s most brutal dictatorships. I wonder how our interrogation “techniques” compare to some of those dictatorships (or, for that matter, communist China). If those countries are our moral equals when it comes to the treatment of prisoners, then we really have sunk lower than I care to think about.
John Cole
I meant that it matters not in the context of what has to be done now, and that it matters not in the context that these people are still dead.
And JWidener, equivalency arguments are lame regardless the direction.
Sinequanon
My response is on my website.
^5John
Sinequanon
Are you two trying to convince John to take back his sentiments or what? John’s statements seemed perfectly clear to me. No need to bash him over the head with Pinochet arguments.
demimondian
Yes, we have a problem with torture. The problem is that abuse is corrosive: if anybody, however responsible, can beat people, or deprive them of sleep, or commit any act of physical abuse, then the creeps and the sadists will overdo it. Our military does a sterling job of keeping the creeps and sadists out — but no screen is perfect, and the strains of combat will inevitably cause people who weren’t sick before to become sick. That’s why it’s so important to create a bright line: we don’t injure people when we question them. Ever. Because, otherwise, some bad apples will rot the whole peck…and then it won’t just be a few bad apples. It’ll be a lot of closely associated bad apples, looking out for each other’s backs.
ppGaz
Good post.
While I don’t blame the events on anyone in particular, two things:
The civilian leadership ultimately has to accept some responsibility. Not in the sense that they acted to make these things happen, but in the sense that taking responsibility is what they get paid for. It’s their job. It’s also their job to advance measures and policies that, to the greatest possible extent, ensure that these activities are not repeated.
In that light, I’m frankly baffled by the administration’s defensive and secretive behaviors in regard to this issue. It seems to me that forthright and agressive response to this problem works in their favor, on all fronts. It would defuse criticism, and send a message abroad that Americans don’t tolerate this sort of thing.
albedo
Megadittoes.
Also, something that gets lost in these discussions and in the flame thread that’s sure to ensue below, is that prisoner abuse and torture are totally counterproductive to the goal of gathering credible info. So this stuff not only harms the prisoners, and our reputation, but also makes our military and all of us tangibly less safe.
mike famie
I’m glad to see more people coming around, but I don’t know if it really matters at this point. It’s been made fairly clear that what we know now is the tip of the iceberg, and if those abu ghraib videos leak..I don’t know. I go against my instincts saying they shouldn’t be released, but I don’t know what good they would do, I think they would only casue more harm at this point. I suppose the argument is that they would create a lot more Rick Moran’s, but again, would it matter?
This administration is going to do what it wants to do, public opinion be damned. I don’t think any amount of pressure from the public is going to change this President’s mind. Maybe that’s an overly cynical, partisan belief..
There’s such a massive, just massive lack of courage and leadership from both parties thats it’s disgusting. Just not about this, but the war in general.
And I wanna say this, even though it’ll make me sound like a total dick: I’m sick and fucking tired of Bush supporters seeing the light 6 months after an issue has been raised and argued. And to sound like even more of a dick (if that’s possible): In four years John and Rick are going to be writing these same kind of posts about the entire damn war, it’s fucking tragic.
ppGaz
A lot of people are, and it will in two years, not four.
Political pressure will force a pullback, there will be a temporary period of stasis during which we’ll claim victory (over what, will not be made clear), and then Iraq will turn into something worse than it was 3 years ago, and/or end up in an alliance with a much more dangerous foe, Iran.
To save the “fers” the trouble of making an obnoxious and wrong claim, these are not the things I prefer to happen. These are the things I believe will happen. What I preferred was that we never go in there. Once in there, what I preferred was an early escape with a good outcome. Right now what I prefer is a stable Iraq that somehow, at least, serves its own citizens, if not our interests.
I don’t plan on getting any of my preferences out of this adventure. Maybe I’ll be wrong, I hope so. Lives will be saved. But I don’t believe in faith-based foreign policy. Never have, never will.
mike famie
Since I’m in a “mood”, I hate this “support the war” stuff. What war? This isn’t a war, it’s a freaking shooting gallery and a propaganda tool for islamic extremists. I understand supporting it before it happened (I was an early suppoter, no shit, huh?) but there’s nothing left to support, our leadership is Washington is abysmal, it’s practically non-existent. There’s nothing left to support excpet but demand that Washington wakes up and does what it takes to get the job done, whether that means the draft or whatever, or get the fuck out. Stop saying you support the war, the war is over. The only things left are cowardess leadership and death.
Mike S
A few grafs from Rick’s piece.
I could almost feel his pain as I read his whole post. It was what I went through when the Abu Ghraib story broke. That day and the weeks that followed where people were down playing, equivicating, defending and down right praising those acts were the most depressing times for me since my father died. I was litterally losing faith in my country. It was obvious to me at the time that it was not a “few bad apples” and that it went higher than the low rank soldiers that were catching the blame.
I don’t want to start a flame war. Maybe it was easier for me to see because I had no faith in this admin while people like Rick and John still did, or do. I’m just glad more people are seeing it, although I noticed in Rick’s comments there are still too many that don’t.
This is not a left/right, Rep/Dem issue. This is an American issue. It’s about who we are and who we want to be. Every time I see someone get that it restores a little more of my faith in this country.
Richard Bottoms
Better late than never.
The key part is this being done in your name. While John would never torture anyone, enabling those that did makes him culpable. Me too because my taxes pay for as well.
What is heartening is little by little the John Cole’s of the country are realizing they are being lied to on a fundamental level. Nothing so outlandish as pick your comspiracy theory about the neocons, nope just garden variety lying to a foolish public.
President Integrity is looking you dead in the eye and telling you that torture as a policy is not true when even the most loyal Republican can see that it must be at least tolerated and winked at. Their own eyes can no longer deny the truth, their own common sense can only be abused so long before they start to say “hey, wait a minute…”
It’s starting to sink in that when their kids grow up and start asking Daddy, did you know they were torturing those people? They’ll have an answer they can stomach.
Mike S
One of the comments from Rick’s blog is a perfect example of what makes me lose faith.
Katherine
Thanks.
What are we going to do about it? All of us who agree that this is unacceptable, I mean. I’ve been waiting for leadership from Washington for years. With some admirable exceptions, the cavalry is not going to arrive. Only a few are trying–a handful of really active people on the Democratic side though most will vote the right way if others do the leg work, pretty much just McCain and Graham on the GOP side–and without active support from regular citizens they have close to no chance of success.
mike famie
the cavalry is not going to arrive
That’s pretty much what I was wanting to say, I just got too worked up. I feel folks like John and Rick believe that somehow, some way, this (the war) is all going to work itself out, but from my vantage point, there’s no evidicne to suggest that’s the case.
What is there that makes people believe this administartion suddenly, after all these years, is magically going to wake up and take the war effort seriously? I don’t understand it.
KC
You know, I have yet to see a strong argument in favor of torture. I know the standard ones, the arguments John addresses and emasculates in his post. Are there any strong arguments in favor of it? Is there anyway to gage whether or not our use of torture has been benefitted us? Not trying to start a war here, just curious. For the record, I’m 100% against torture.
Jess
John,
I just wanted to thank you for having the moral and intellectual courage to speak out on this. I’m sure this must be a really depressing experience for you, kind of like realizing that an abusive, unloving parent is never going to change and make everything all right (been there, done that). Good job. I hope more people wake up and take action, and I really hope those who were critical all along don’t behave like jerks about it. We really need to all pull together on this one.
BoZ the Rider
Support the troops! Enlist today or help bring them home!
I have two friends who voted Bush and they’re both of the “Brainwashed Christian” type. Lovely people, just can’t discuss politics or religion. The reason they gave was “It’s a time of war and I think he deserves to at least get the chance to finish it.”
Sound reasonable? No. I give an example:
This administration is likened to that plumbing company, and Bush is your exterminator. He doesn’t know what he’s doing, he doesn’t know how to solve this problem any more than the plumbers.
Now, onto the flame war!
James Emerson
Tendrils of connectedness…
You cannot be revulsed by torture while being fine with the war. It is hypocritical. Both are extensions of Bush’s world view. Filaments of ideology, lawlessness, political opportunism, and personality shortcomings tie them together as a near singularity.
If you support the theory of a war based on bald faced lies, exaggerations, and deceit, then logically you have to support the mechanism of said war no matter how disturbing.
Is not one the sad result of the other?
Brian
There’s no practical justification for torture. I think it is just an emotionally satisfying way to stick it to them middle eastern types as some sort of symbolic revenge for 9/11. That’s why the practical problems it causes (bad info, breakdowns in discipline, etc.) are ignored by the apologists.
What are we going to do about it? We had an election. Didn’t accomplish much but I note Bush’s approval rating has broken though 40%. Will be interesting to see if it can grind down to 30%. There will be another election in 2006.
Jess
For you it would be hypocritical, because you see it as a “near singularity,” and while I generally agree with you (why I didn’t support the war in the first place), I don’t think you can accuse others of hypocrisy if they sincerely believe(d) that the war was necessary. John still believes in the ultimate rightness of this war and therefore is really not a hypocrite (or no more of one than the rest of us, anyway) in this matter. In fact, considering his willingness to publicly admit that his position needed revising, I would say that he’s way ahead of most people in terms of intellectual integrity. So back off, dude.
Mike S
These and the many comments like them are what makes this a R/D issue when it shouldn’t be. Try dropping your partisan hats and see this for what it is.
An American issue.
Andrei
What I cannot fathom yet is why folks like John, who have now railed against pretty much everything about this administration and what it has to done in the recent past, can still think the Iraq war was the “right thing to do” given how poorly it has been executed and waged so far, all the intelligence we now know to not be true, and how wrong this administration has been about so many other things to date.
Just what would it take to turn that corner? Why is it taking so many incredibly drastic and extreme things to happen for people to even consider turning the corner on a pre-emptive war like Iraq?
What pissed me off about the run up to war is that no other options were ever honestly discussed. So many people let this administration railroad a single, simple minded policy approach to the problem: pre-emptive war. 9/11 seemed to shake everyone so off their feet that we turned what is arguably not as severe a problem as so many other pressing problems we face, and poured gasoline onto a small campfire turning it into a blaze that now threatens to get out of control.
There are always thousands of solutions to any given problem. Why weren’t other avenues explored to at least have an honest debate about what the right long term thing to do about the problem of terrorism?
How is it that a minor sex scandal shook the very bones of the GOP during the 90s to act in unprecidented ways, but it’s now taking things like Gitmo and Abu Grahib to even get the start of outrage going in those same people?
While I don’t want to sit here and point a finger at Cole for this sort of article, after all he has said on this blog so far, I’m still utterly boggled by why he still stands by the Iraq waras the correct foreign policy appproach. I honestly don’t get it.
Pre-emptive war is as dangerous a slippery slope as the death penalty. If you engage in it, you’re better be 100% you are right, then quadruple check just in case before acting on it. Because when you are wrong, and you execute an innocent person or wage a war against a country that really didn’t have WMDs and where soldiers have paid the ultimate price… Well, I don’t believe there’s ever room for those kinds of mistakes from the people we put in charge.
Stormy70
I don’t think all of America should wear a hairshirt for what a few bad apples are doing. Torture is wrong and doesn’t accomplish anything substansive, but lots of Americans are for it, completely. All my libertarian friends think torture is just fine, and I get in arguments with them all the time. Democrats as well. I guess we’ll have to wait for the trials for the perpetrators to go on. You do want them to go on trial right? Were these Iraqis who did the torturing? I need more information to condemn our entire military structure than a WAPO piece with anonymous leaks and sources. My trust in the media is at the lowest it’s ever been.
I guess you guys missed the fact that we are engaged in a major military operation along the Euphrates, and that is why we are seeing an uptick in casualties. Do you just trust the news media, or do you pay attention to what the generals are saying in their Iraqi press conferences? I wonder why the MSM doesn’t inform us on this operation, could it be they are pushing the anti war agenda? I’m tired of the doom and gloom from the anti-war people on this site, and the blanket condemnations of the military, when the attempt to prosecute the perpetrators is ongoing.
Torture is wrong, but my outrage meter is set on low because of people crying wolf over Gitmo. Turns out there wasn’t torture going on there, but I guess it’s time to move on to the next set of unproven allegations.
Stormy70
One more point, humiliation is not torture. I reserve my outrage for torture, like the case of the Iraqi general. That is completely beyond the pale, and I’m glad that this was investigated and justice will be done. I don’t care if the General was innocent or not, he should not have been killed in that manner.
DecidedFenceSitter
Folks, berating someone anyone for what they did two years ago and have “mea culpa”ed already does no good. All one can do is step forward from here.
Now the question is, what can one do from here on out? It is obvious that the administration is going to continue to stay in it’s echo chamber, so writing is out. (I’m not even going to begin to rant about the response that I’ve received to my “protect civil liberties” letters).
Does anyone know of a “hit list” of vulnerability senators/reps in swing states who might be worth going after? Heck, I don’t even care if we put someone in who I agree with 67% of the time, just shake up the power structure.
Shaking up the power structure. That seems to be the key to my thoughts. But I don’t think that will happen until the way districts are created is changed drastically so that the creation of “safe” districts no longer happens.
d
everyone should read this
http://www.exile.ru/2004-June-24/war_nerd.html
Torture is part of any counter-insurgency. Particularly one where the CI force has virtually no civilian support.
Take this in good faith & not as a troll; but when you support a war, you are also supporting how it is likely to be fought. If people are genuinely interested in this topic I highly recommend Joes’ “Resisting Rebellion”
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0813123399/qid=1123243575/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_ur_2_1/002-9483733-0915255
Tom Hintz
Watching an inveterate old Bush apologist like Touchy Moran display qualms about torture is simply hilarious. Torture is bad, Rick? What a revelation! It rots the core of our national moral purpose? Nawwwww. It makes us appear to be no better than those we claim are evil in eyes of a vast majority of the people living on this planet? Oh good Lord how can we stand such controversy? Only in the world of the disintegrating right and its increasingly irrelevant blog relics could conversations like this be taken seriously.
Let’s see how the country currently views the First Torture Enabler, shall we? From yesterday’s AP/Ipsos Public Affairs Poll:
Bush’s Approval Rating: 42%
50% say he’s dishonest.
56% find him to be arrogant.
59% think his vanity war in Iraq is a fucking mess.
And while we’re at it, only 33% approve of the job the GOP controlled Porky Pig Congress is doing.
http://www.ipsos.na.com/news/client/act_dsp_pdf.cfm?name=mr050805-1topline.pdf&id=2747
Tom Hintz
Make the Ipsos cite http://www.ap-ipsosresults.com/
Bob
Every country has a dark part of its past. You get past it by admitting it, recognizing why it happened (during which the responsibility is distributed), and then figuring out how not to do it again.
Not a hard process to describe. Just hard to do. Requires a mirror.
demimondian
I hate this war — but I believe we will need to continue prosecuting it.
Kissinger’s domino theory bore exactly the same relationship to the Vietnam War as the current administration’s “failed state and heart of terror” theory bears to this war: it wasn’t true before the war, but it was true as a result of the war. If we leave Iraq, the Shias and the Kurds will suffer horribly at the hands of the Al Qaeda backed Sunnis. That was will spread its tendrils throughout Iran and Saudi Arabia, not to mention Israel. The middle east will be a flaming battle ground for the next half century.
We need to stay until things are stabilized. We can, and should, set standards for the stages toward leaving, but we owe it to the Iraqis, who, after all, didn’t ask us to invade, to leave things in a state where the transition to a failed state is inevitable.
Stormy70
I disagree with this portion of your post. I think the only reason the Sunnis have not been slaughtered en masse is our presence, and the patience of the Shia and Kurdish political figures. Occassionally, there are stories of Sunnis being found executed, by persons unknown. I think the Sunnis are walking a very fine line here. Even Al Jazeera is starting to call the insurgents “terrorists”, and the Sunni support is starting to crumble for the terrorists, since they are bombing innocent Iraqis.
pmm
Mr. Cole wrote:
I’d add that it needs to be done with an actual understanding of how the military chain-of-command works, and how orders and policies are devised and distributed. And that item regarding “preconceptions” goes both ways. Assuming that SECDEF Rumsfeld ordered some sergeant to smother a prisoner without any proof doesn’t exactly help the situation. Finally, I’d like to see some definitions upfront (from both sides) on what constitutes pressure, abuse, and torture. That way, you can’t have folks constantly revising their definitions to fit their political needs.
And D, the idea that coalition & host national forces have “virtually no civilian support” is quite frankly amazing. Where do you get your information?
John S.
I suppose you wouldn’t mind, then, if someone took you and stripped off all your clothing then hung you (in a humane fashion) from a scaffolding atop a crowded square so that the masses could come and stare at you. Everyday. For a month.
No torture there, just a little humiliation…
John S.
Oh, well then we can just assume that all Democrats and people leaning to the Left ‘heart’ torture. Pardon me if I scoff at your ludicrous attempt to spin a lurid myth.
Anyway, all my Republican and conservative friends like to eat babies and drink the blood of the innocent…
Dennis
Most people have turned a blind eye to this. I was an MP, Confinement Specialist, during the Vietnam war. We were trained not to do these things, but did some pretty nasty things anyway. Nothing that rises to this level. I feel no shame or guilt over the treatment of prisoners under my care.
The U.S. has turned a nasty corner. The evidence is overwhelming, obvious, and available to anyone who looks. The United States no longer holds the moral high ground. We are all guilty indirectly of torture if we allow our Government to continue. When the administration suspended habeous Corpus, began rendition, relaxed the rules for interrogation, and started using closed tribunals we became what the terrorists accuse us of.
This and the misuse of evidence as a pretext to war is the legacy of the Bush Administration. Make no mistake the reputation of the United States is shattered. This administration will be remembered for little else in history!
Stormy70
Well, lookee here, only one week behind.
Hanging seems like torture to me. Also, being put on public display goes against the Geneva Conventions. Are you saying this has happened and that our military did this? Just making sure you are not trying to distract me with hypothetical senarios. Try these guys for public hanging, though, they are the experts.
Russell
Regarding where responsibility lies, I recommend looking into the following:
1. Bush’s request for legal counsel on the applicability of the GC and US torture law, and the legal opinions offered by Gonzales, Bybee, and Yoo in response.
Of particular note is the memo by Yoo in which he asserts that the President is above the law when acting as commander in chief. I’m not sure if that memo is available in it’s original form, it may still be classified.
Also of particular note is Gonzales’ noting that exempting prisoners from POW or other GC-protected status could lead to a lack of clarity concerning their treatment, resulting in a loss of morale among US troops responsible for their handling, and an increase of abuses. Prescient, that.
2. Rumsfeld’s advocacy of harsher interrogation methods, and the resistance he met from professional military command and legal staff.
3. Miller’s assignment to Abu Ghraib and his agenda of “Gitmo-izing” that prison.
There’s more that could be added, but that’s a good starting point. Sorry, no links. Google is your friend.
What seems clear to me is that decisions were made at a very high level to introduce interrogation techniques that were well outside of what was permissible in normal military doctrine, as contained in Army and other field and operational manuals, and which also, to give them the most generous assessment, pushed the envelope of what is allowable under US and international law and treaties.
Add to this the introduction of relatively unaccountable actors from the intelligence community (CIA) and private agencies.
Add to all of this a resistance, to the point of refusal, to any independent oversight and review.
I doubt we will ever find a memo from GW Bush stating that prisoners should be beaten to death. Ditto Rumsfeld, although their is likely direction from him advocating harsh, abusive, and possibly torturous practices.
What I believe we do see is a civilian command structure that is willing to push the envelope as hard as they can — or, rather, is willing to direct others to do so — but which provides no direction, policy, or oversight to prevent abuses, nor accepts any responsibility for the result.
They’ll let the grunts take the fall first. If that doesn’t take the heat off, they’ll let some low and mid level commanders fall on their spears. If that still doesn’t get it, some one and two stars will go. Still not enough? Maybe Rumsfeld will be trotted out to offer a mealy mouthed, equivocal statement of regret. Regret, not apology or responsibility.
“These things happen, except when they don’t, except that they did, except when they didn’t.” I can hear it now, can’t you?
The days when the buck stopped at the President’s desk are long, long gone, and will not return while the current President are in office. It’s not in him to act differently.
Thanks –
Stormy70
No, that was not my point. My point was the majority of Americans do not care if terrorists get tortured. I am not saying this is ok, just stating the reality. After the beheadings of Americans started, sympathy for tortured terrorists dried up immediately. It is bipartisan, not just right wingers or hawkish types. I have anti war relatives that don’t mind the torture of terrorists. I am saying that this is a reason that it is not resonating with the general populace. I also did not claim all Democrats feel this way, but a majority that I come in contact with do. Just a personal anecdote, no reason to jump up into my grill. Why the personal attack on my dietary habits?
Stormy70
No, if this is what you are hanging your hat on, then it is up to you to provide the evidence by linking to it. Google is my friend which is why I employ links in my posts to back up my assertions. I don’t make others do the dirty work.
docG
While there is NO equivalency between U.S. military actions in Vietnam and Iraq, for an old timer, the difficult, heartfelt expressions of Mr. Cole and Mr. Moran feel very much like Walter Cronkite’s analysis of the Vietnam War as unwinnable. I know the expressions of upset with torture is NOT calling the war unwinnable. It is, however, a similar loss of confidence expressed by the type of people the adminstration must have to continue on. What a sad state of affairs.
TallDave
Torture cannot be allowed. If we don’t destroy this kind of thing root, branch and twig, we become no better than those we are fighting.
It’s good to see the investigations going forward. That kind of transparency is what makes free democracy better than tyranny.
TallDave
On the other hand, judging from the comments here, a lot of people have already decided that not only is torture widespread, the whole thing is Bush’s fault. That kind of rank partisanship hurts America, aids the terrorists, and frankly is not much better than the torturing.
Sanity, people.
BinkyBoy
Your grasp of the American mentality is overwhelming. Please, can you tell me how they feel about the number 12? How do they feel about the color Mauve? I bow down to your superiority and omnipotence.
CaseyL
People cling to believing the war was “good and necessary” because realizing it was neither means calling into question everything they said and thought since 2002.
It means they would have to acknowledge that tens of thousands of people have died for nothing; that hundreds of thousands have been maimed, widowed, or orphaned for nothing.
It means they had given their votes, their loyalty, and in some ways their hearts to a man and a regime that will be remembered for committing an atrocity that forever stains our national honor and makes a mockery of our national ideals.
Another Jeff
Instead of using physical torture on terrorist/suspected terrorists, why don’t we just make them read DougJ and ppGaz when they argue evolution vs ID? They’ll talk in no time.
Stormy70
Hah!
I can read the poll data from Rasmussen.
The number 12 seems weak to me. I like the teens for good, strong numbers.
The color mauve is so last season, and finally, thanks for bowing down. Please bring chocolates next time. Thanks!
The Quiet Storm
One more point, humiliation is not torture
Ah Stormy you missed your calling as a dominatrix. Perhaps we could strip you naked, and tie you to a pole in the middle of times square and have homeless people grop you and fondle you. Let’s do this for several days. As DougJ would point out it’s only a harmless Frat Boy prank and not torture.
You my dear are a sociopath.
DecidedFenceSitter
Actually it is. Not in a he authorized it sort of way, (unless he did which I doubt), but in a he’s that Commander in Chief.
It sucks to be at the top of the food chain. It sucks to be the CEO. IMO he has not made a strong enough cases against the use of extreme measures against those in our custody, so thus while he may not cupable to the crime, he is cupable due to a lack of due diligence. In fact, I would go as far as to say that his policies have provided the environment that these sorts of activities could continue.
John S.
I made a very similar comment, but Stormy doesn’t want you to “distract me with hypothetical senarios”. Unless those hypothetical scenarios are of Stormy’s creation:
Where these ‘statistics’ come from, I have no idea.
Another Jeff
“As DougJ would point out it’s only a harmless frat-boy prank and not torture”.
In defense of the real DougJ, that was a pseudo-DougJ who said that.
demimondian
John S. — Stormy actually did answer you; she pointed out that the public display of prisoners of war is a violation of their Geneva convention rights. I would take that to mean she actually holds a slightly stronger view than she has indicated. I would infer that she believes that POW’s Geneva rights (which include protection from torture) should be protected.
Interrogation, which typically does include “mind-games”, is explicitly permitted under Geneva, remember. Rough interrogation is typically forbidden.
Defense Guy
It is amazing how so many can only see one side of the equation on this thread. Torture bad, no shit. But you all act as if this stuff is happening in a vacuum, so thank G-d no one of importance is listening to you.
I especially like the assertation by someone above that the domino theory was bullshit before we got involved to stop it, but our attempt actually made it true. I am not sure if it’s brain damage or drugs that makes this seem like sense, but I do knot that the majority of the American population is not going to so easily swallow this hippie revisionist crap.
Whether you choose to admit it or not, war is upon you. It just may have not hit close to home enough for you to really realize it yet.
Geek, Esq.
You guys give me hope for the Republican party.
tBone
I agree. I don’t think most people would lose much sleep over a few scumbag terrorists getting worked over.
That’s a lot different than a systematic pattern of abuse and innocent people being tortured, though. If those things are happening, all Americans should be outraged at what’s being done in our name.
We don’t need a rush to judgment, but we can’t afford to turn a blind eye either.
Anderson
Folks, there is a strange blogospheric resentment of agreement. Presumably because it thwarts the frustration that some commenters seek to vent.
You can be against torture and still favor the war. Some people think that any war overthrowing a tyrant is a good war. I happen to disagree, but it’s not obviously a mistaken position.
This war, good idea or not, could have been waged competently and humanely with much better results. That it wasn’t is an objection to the handling of the war, not to the war itself.
As for “what do we do about the torture” (Katherine’s question), that is the most frustrating aspect, because it spotlights how helpless I feel as a citizen of what is supposedly this wonderful democracy. American politics is a choice between Coke and Pepsi, and if you pick “none of the above,” you’ve marginalized yourself.
DecidedFenceSitter
I don’t know what to say to you, but quote you the original post by Rick Moran:
Stormy70
This is my position. I don’t excuse torture, and it should be punished. I am not ready to condemn the entire military or the Administration for it. Bush has come out strongly against torture, and has said it is not our policy. These incidences are being investigated, which is proper. Torture is not effective or needed to extract information. Sorry, but humiliating a terrorist in an interrogation room does not make me lose any sleep. I’m sorry if the poor misogynistic terrorist had to look at a naked woman, but it is not torture. It is also permitted under the Geneva Conventions, although most of these terrorists do not qualify for protection under the Geneva Conventions.
Look at the poll I cited above, people do not care about terrorists treatment for the most part. That is reality.
Defense Guy
It is not de facto truth that you quote. It is a series of questions. So let me add this one, is this country worth having if allow ourselves to be cowed by murderous thugs? If we allow the seemingly endless streams of the murder of innocent civilians to continue, how can we even look at ourselves in the mirror?
So hey, we all have the things that outrage us.
mac Buckets
I’m not going to lose a wink of sleep over abuses of Muslim prisoners who have shown themselves to be 100% willing to die for their cause, and only hope that they take as many infidels with them when they do finally kill themselves. Some of you people sound like a doctor rushing to the scene of a murder/suicide shooting in hopes of resuscitating the gunman. You’re backwards. Some people forfeit their rights by their choices, and the choice to kill innocents to please your god is one of those choices that clearly merit forfeiture.
The only issues to me are: Do we get useful information with these techniques against this particular enemy (you and I are in no place to answer), do we stop this prisoner ever blowing himself up in a marketplace, and do we limit harsh techniques to those who we think are carriers of useful intel? Since you don’t get information from a dead guy, killing a prisoner is a tactical failure on the first goal, but not the second.
The Islamic Fundies have the Free World at only one disadvantage, but it is a big disadvantage: They are more devoted to their cause than we are to stopping them (at present time). While the Free World plays politics and marks our casualties with clucking of tongues, the Muslim Fundies don’t only not moan about their casualties — they celebrate them as martyrs. They are hard, hard dudes and most Euros and Americans are soft as Charmin, and we celebrate our softness with a bowl full of Roddenberries and cream, pretending that our moral clarity and self-righteous superiority are the only weapons we need against an enemy who will blow himself up to kill two of us. We’ve seen, some of us firsthand, that life and death mean virtually nothing to them because of their interpretation of their faith. They have plainly stated that they desire to kill all infidels, be it on battlefields, in newly-liberated cities, or in office buildings, while the US has taken pains to show we do not want to even cause the slightest discomfort any innocent Muslims — in fact, we want to improve their lot!
So should I show more concern for a Muslim fundamentalist prisoner’s life than he does? No thanks. There’s a word for someone who overvalues your stuff: sucker.
Rick’s right to hate the war. We should all hate every war. But once we’re in it, we’re going to win it. Being a sucker does not achieve that goal.
BinkyBoy
Who is being cowed by murderous thugs? Are you so low in self-esteem that you have to exude testosterone on every possible terrorist to prove your manliness?
Prisoners are just that, prisoners. They should be charged and tried, not tortured.
This goes right back to the dehumanization/marginalization of “terrorists”. Its ok to hurt them, its ok to torture them, they are murdering terrorists! You’ve allowed yourself to be sucked into the dehumanization propaganda that so many liberals have been decrying, and you don’t seem to care. Defense Guy is the real sociopath, unable to see them as real human beings, capable of rational and intelligent thought…
Its people like DG that make me fear for America and its real moral compass (not the magic Dobson compass)
Defense Guy
BinkyBoy
Since you can’t even write one comment that does not include some factual error, I’ll take your ire and diagnosis of sociopathy as a compliment. You don’t fear for America, you fear for some imaginary country that you have created in your head. You are a moral and intellectual paintywaist and I sneer in your general direction.
Jcricket
Buried at the bottom of John’s post is one part I believe is the most important:
While I understand the need for secrecy in military planning and intelligence gathering, I cannot fathom how, if our interrogation policies are necessary, and our prisoner handling policies (indefinite detention, rendition) are legal/OK, they have to be conducted with such subterfuge and disengenuousness. The defense everyone seems to fall back on is like the scene from “A Few Good Men” when Jack Nicholson yells, “You can’t handle the truth!” And it’s just as sad in real life.
Also important, in the age of 24×7 news, cameraphones and worldwide investigative journalism the Bush administration thinks they can keep their extra/pseudo-legal policies a secret. One example are the 200+ people from Gitmo already. They’re going to go back and tell everyone they meet what happened to them. They’re going to be interviewed by international journalists. Whether or not our journalists report on it is almost irrelevant. It will get out, and it will harm us. We’re most certainly losing the war for “hearts and minds” through our actions.
It would be far better to take the moral high ground and be out in front of these issues explicitly stating, “We do not approve of this, ever“. Instead we mumble “well, it might be necessary” (see the Gonsalez memos) or “these are all terrorists” (the “they needed killing” defense) or, worse “don’t question us” (“nothing to see here, move along, just a few dead people”). Not saying that would stop all abuses, but it would go a long way to helping us achieve of long-term goals, which require avoiding intentionally inflaming the situation throughout the Arab & muslim world.
Look at what Sharon said when the extremist settler opened fire on a bus filled with Israeli Arabs. He condemned it, outright, as an act of terrorism. No comments about “we’re at war”, no blaming the Palestinians since “they do it too”.
John, I applaud you for coming around, even if it is belatedly.
Stormy70
The talking points have been issued, I see.
Whip snap!
Defense Guy
We are returning 500 prisoners captured in Afghanistan, to the new government of Afghanistan. Some may well be tortured. I will await the outrage that we could ever release these prisoners to their country of origin.
Another Jeff
YOU HAVE THAT LUXURY, THE LUXURY OF NOT KNOWING WHAT I KNOW. (That’s not really relevant, I just wanted to quote Colonel Jessup too.)
Mike S
This thread is the perfect example of why the pictures that the administration is trying so hard to hide need to be seen by all. Maybe when people see graphic evidence that people have been raped and murdered in their name they will regain a bit of their humanity. Maybe they will finally believe, like Graham and McCain, that something definitive must be done. Maybe when they see a child being raped they will stop giving it approval by their defence. Maybe, just maybe, they will be able to picture their own child or sibling in the same situation and finally understand just how evil and disgusting it truely is.
I’d like to think that would happen but I’m not so sure it will.
demimondian
I suggest that statement is true only if the people in question are civil prisoners. I suggest that we need to recognize a dichotomy: people are either combat prisoners or civil prisoners. This explicitly rejects the “man of no country” classification of “unlawful combatant”. You’re either a lawful combatant or a criminal.
The point is that each of these classes has rights. The sophistry of creating a third class, with the rights of neither, is, I think, the decision which led us down the path we are on.
Halffasthero
That depends on your definition of torture. : )
(sorry – I saw the shot. I took it.)
Another Jeff
“That depends on your definition of torture.”
And who the woman is. Halle Berry, not torture (although making them watch “Catwoman” WOULD be torture). Lyndie Englund (or whatever her name is)naked, torture.
Defense Guy
You will have just given spies and actual terrorists the shield that they have never enjoyed before. Non-uniformed combatants have been historicaly executed when captured, and the fact that we are not doing this should help alieve some folks fears about our morality. It probably won’t, for the reason of the required one-sided view necessary in any conversation about the US or this president.
KevinA
Dear John,
You’re aiding the terrorists. Flaming leftist.
Sincerely,
Bill O’Reilly
———————————————————-
I hope the snarkiness was obvious here folks.
Bruce from Missouri
I’m glad to see you saying this, John….
But I still have one question. Is this going to affect how you vote next time? If it doesn’t, then your post has no meaning or value
Bruce
mac Buckets
Not that this hand-wringing is all about partisanship, though! Cough, cough! I mean, my God, Bruce…haven’t they taught you to be a little less transparent?
John Cole
Yes. I solemnly swear not to vote for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Gen. Miller, etc, in 2008.
Jimmy Jazz
Right, because everyone we pick up is a hard core Islamofascist Al Queda terrorist, including the women, kids, and old men, and the ones who were sold for a bounty or turned in over a grudge. Our brave men and women in uniform are all-knowing and omniscient, and can sort the wheat from the chaff with merely a glance.
What a load of shit.
Defense Guy
I will promise not to vote for Bush in 2008. See, comprimise is possible.
demimondian
Defense Guy:
You are leaving out a step. Non-uniformed combatants have traditionally been tried and, if convicted, executed.
I have this anachronistic belief in the importance of useless things like due process. Please, be gentle — I know I’m a dinosaur, marching on my happy, quadrupedal way to drowning in the Flood, but I’ve got to live here while I wait.
Stormy70
It was a sweet set up.
mac Buckets
I trust the soldiers know more than you are I who is a Muslim fanatic, just as you trust that they were all just on Afghanistan’s battlefields on holiday.
Hint: The detainees at Gitmo who kept yelling how they were going to kill the soldiers’ mothers and daughters to the glory of Allah? Probably not milkmen of human kindness…
Defense Guy
It is not, as you might guess, that I do not share this belief as well. The difference is that, having examined our history and our law, I understand that this due process you speak of happens outside of our civilian courts. You should be glad to know this has not changed.
In addition, we aren’t lining them up and shooting them when they continue to assert that they will gladly continue to seek the blood of Americans should they be released. I do not know if this is kindness or insanity.
Jimmy Jazz
Lyddie England and the other residents of the Shady Tree trailer park? I don’t trust those ignorant buffoons to sort out their asses from holes in the ground. We can’t trust individuals to make these decisions, no matter who they are. That’s the whole rationale behind due process, and why we have courts. I really love people like you: you’re the first ones to say that liberals don’t respect the sacrifice our soliders make “defending our freedoms” yet you’re the first ones to shit all over those freedoms for some perceived “security”.
Russell
Stormy70 –
Here’s a starting point. Most of this is just documentation, not analysis, although the lawofwar site includes some analysis.
I draw your attention in particular to the exemptions claimed for the executive in the Walker working group memo, and to the reservations expressed by the JAG officers as expressed in the memos read into the Congressional testimony by Graham and others in the FAS transcript.
And, of course, this is all military. It doesn’t touch on policies and actions taken by the CIA or private contract interrogators, which I believe are involved in most or all of the abuses.
Law of War
WSJ (.pdf)
GWU
FAS
Some of this stuff is long, but if you want to know what’s going on it’s worth your time. Have a good read and draw your own conclusions.
demimondian
It is not, as you might guess, that I do not share this belief as well.That is a relief — I had begun to worry that you didn’t. All snark aside, the fastest way for us as a nation to start marching off to our death is to give up on those “anachronisms”.
As may be — but individuals tried under the Uniform Code also have broad civil rights. They are permitted a public trial by a jury of their peers. They are permitted defense counsel. They are permitted contact with counsel. All these things have been denied to the detainees in Guantanamo.
Believing that we should give those things up shows a stunning lack of faith in the judicial system. You know, courts have been dealing with criminals for a long time, and most of them are not “the milkmen of human kindness” (as somebody else said in this thread). Why do you think that terrorists are any worse than those thugs? Go look as your John Gotti’s. OBL is a monster…but so was Gotti. I say we can keep our values and our safety. And I say we should do so.
JWeidner
You’re right. Chalk it up to a late night and a bad mood and I’m sorry for that.
But I don’t find much difference between the tactics that some in the military (I know this isn’t a military-wide problem) are accused of utilizing (stuffing someone into a sleeping bag and beating them to death?) and those reportedly used by some of the worst dictatorships. I did NOT mean to equate all of the US, or even all of the military to those countries and only used “our country” in the sense that, as has been pointed out, this problem is not limited to a few rogue soldiers, but seems to be more widespread and condoned.
Please understand – I have nothing but respect for our military forces. By and large I believe they are honest people going about the business of keeping our country safe with an honor and integrity that is scarcely found in some of our own citizenry. I’m sorry that what amounts to a few bad apples spoiled that for me for a moment last night.
Defense Guy
Show it with facts. Show me the law.
Defense Guy
No, you are trying to make new law here. This has been established by our highest court in the land. We are doing what the law states we must, and attempts like this to claim we are not are simply dishonest.
mac Buckets
See, that’s why you’re such a sucker. You think our soldiers died for the rights of foreign suicide terrorists.
Unbelievable. Well, totally believable, from some of you.
Kirk Spencer
Everyone else I’ve challenged to cite a reference justifying this statement has failed to do so, so perhaps you can provide the necessary documentation. Cite, please.
Frankly, until 2002 almost every nation in the world – and since then all but the US – have indeed considered prisoners taken during time of war to be in only one of two conditions: military, and civilian. To support this claim, I’ll cite part of the 1st protocol of the Geneva Conventions – the portion that is rather plain text, which requires narrow quotes from elsewhere to claim an exemption of some sort:
Spies (See article 46 of the same first protocol) are a special class of prisoner of war and can be put to death AFTER A TRIAL. Terrorists are either saboteurs – non-military combatants who strike only against enemy military targets – or they’re criminals. (See article 68 of the fourth protocol.) Saboteurs can be executed AFTER A TRIAL and PROVIDED the acts caused death AND the relevant criminal charges carry the death penalty by law. Criminals who commit murder may be executed AFTER A TRIAL and PROVIDED the law carries the death penalty. IF the civilians are of a nationality other than the occupier or the nation in which the offense occurred, the trial must remain on hold until at least three weeks subsequent to the notification of the prisoner’s home nation. (Convention IV, article 71.)
Kirk Spencer
For basis to support the subsequent specifics, I cite (1) – Constitution of the United States, Article VI, second paragraph:
As the Geneva Conventions (first four protocols) are treaties to which the United States is signatory, which have been made under the Authority of the United States, they become part of the supreme Law of the Land. Therefore I cite (2) – article 75 of the first protocol of the Geneva Conventions, paragraph 4:
I further cite (3) – Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions paragraph 7:
I have shown you the law as requested.
Bruce from Missouri
Of course it’s partly about partisanship…
But on the other hand, almost every republican in DC has dirty hands on this, whether it is voting for it or defending it. If Clinton had done this in 1996, and my congressman (Bill Clay) had supported and defended it, I would have voted for someone else in 1998.
You have to make your party accountable. But Republicans refuse to, and that’s why this country is going to hell in a handbasket. There is nothing a Republican can do to get you guys to throw him/her out of polite society(except raise taxes). Criminality seems to be a plus for you guys, or Liddy, Colson and North wouldn’t all be millionaires.
If you don’t stand up, the blood is on your hands too, and then you can explain it to God in he hereafter.
My hands are clean. How about yours?
Bruce
Mike S
Nice strawman, idiot. I guess John Cole and Rick Moran believe the same thing. As do McCain and Graham.
I have nothing but contempt for idiots like Mr. Buckethead. So friggin desperate to defend the indefencable that they just make shit up.
Intelectualy dishonest and morally banckrupt.
Defense Guy
Not really you haven’t, because you have omitted the parts that are inconvienant to your argument. If I have time, I will provide them for you. You could save me time by reading all of the geneva convention documents.
You are aware that the USSC has ruled that military tribunals are the court of choice for those captured in a war, are you not?
mac Buckets
You obviously don’t know what a strawman is. Feel free to clarify the statement I quoted.
Soldiers sacrificed for my rights and your rights, not for the rights of an enemy detainee who swears to kill as many Americans as he can. He has forfeited his rights.
And I know full well that a lot of Americans are feeling conflicted about treatment of prisoners. As I said, the Muslim Fundies are hard, and the West is largely soft (or, in some cases, running for office). Softness is the only thing that can lose this struggle for the West, and as always, it will be our hard guys who protect the softies.
Mike S
To the first question, the whole point of his comment was that was that hge doesn’t trust people like Lyndie England to make the determinations. Considering the fact that she obviously has some mental deficiencies, I’ve heard were caused by lack of o2 at birth, I can’t see how anyone would disagree.
Ah yes. Buckethead is one of those tough guys. Raping kids is fine, because it shows you’re tough. Incapacitating someone in a sleeping bag and then murdering them is a show of toughness. “Ooh, look at me, I’m tough. Watch me shove this light stick up this prisoners ass, ain’t I hard?”
Kirk Spencer
Defense Guy, that’s rather disingenuous. “Oh, you’re wrong, but I haven’t the time to prove it.” I cited as requested, now it’s your turn. Tell you what, though, I understand being busy. I’ll wait till tomorrow.
Regarding your USSC and military tribunals statement, you’re mistaken. The USSC has ruled no such thing of which I’m aware – I invite you to tell me the case that disproves me. However in fairness I’ll note that the DC Circuit did make such a ruling – Hamdan v Rumsfeld, decided July 15 of this year.
Also, I have seen many use various citations to claim my preceding posts have exceptions. The majority try to create a chasm out of a shadow of a gap – individuals who are neither military nor native to the nation(s) of conflict nor who have formal allegience to the preceding. There are two flaws with all such that I have seen. First, they fail to negate paragraph 7 of article 75 of protocol 1 – the one that literally separates everyone into two groups: those to whom the laws apply, and the requirements for treating those who do not fall under the laws. And a more practical second flaw is that native Afghani captured in combat in Afghanistan do not meet the criteria of “not native to the nation of conflict”, yet are held in Gitmo. For that matter we have Iraqis held in Iraq under this clause.
Still, the exception may exist – the USSC also has not ruled upon that in any of the Gitmo cases, but instead has reserved its judgement to a very narrow set of issues. (I note that the USSC said Habeus Corpus and right to appeal DO apply, which is counter to a large portion of the claim. But that’s still a narrow decision.) However, the exception is still very limited, and appears to be stretched to include those who under no circumstance meet the requirements as parsed.
But I invite you to show me the error of my logic – to educate and correct me. By all means do so, but please cite law and ruling. I’ll wait.
Defense Guy
Kirk
I will get you the information before the end of the weekend, perhaps before the end of the day. Check back here every so often if you would be so kind.
pmm
Decided Fence-Sitter wrote (regarding the President):
You may be proven right by events, but that’s an incomplete measure of leadership. The question is whether the civilian/military leadership is setting and enforcing the standard. They can’t be castigated only because subordinates break the standard. Otherwise, every time a soldier/sailor/marine/airman breaks the law in the course of performing their duties, the President would be culpable, even if they were violating standing orders when they acted! If actions in violation of established doctrine and policies are being carried out, an investigation needs to determine where the breakdown in leadership occurs.
The highest level of culpability could be as low as the platoon leader or as high as the President, but it’s not a given that the President, the SECDEF, or the CENTCOM commander are complicit in torture. If General So-and-So says that they are enforcing the standard, based on the reports he gets from COL What’s-his-name, the SECDEF isn’t going to go polling every PFC in CENTCOM to see if that’s the case (although I can imagine spot checks should be going on to some extent.)
As for lacking due diligence and creating a permissive environment, what constitutes due diligence? These are vague terms that seem to mean that the administration and DoD aren’t doing enough, without identifying what enough is. Are the policies in place insufficient? Are leaders not supervising their immediate subordinates properly (for example, signing off on statements they have no first-hand knowledge about)? Are reported violations not being pursued properly (Mr. Cole’s story above suggests that folks who weren’t involved in the criminal activities were being negligent by blowing off the SFC). Simply saying that vague policies are insufficient or the corporate culture is wrong without more precision is a thesis that can’t be proven or disproven.
mac Buckets
I think it’s funny that some are willing to go out on that limb of “these detainees aren’t terrorists,” but they deny that the judgement of the guards who are spat on and cursed at by these prisoners every day is probably better in this regard than writing on a blog from 8000 miles away. All guards are not Englund (besides, has anyone argued that the pyramid Muslims were innocent detainees?), and all detainees aren’t just innocent Muslims on holiday to Afghanistan battlefields.
You don’t do anything simply as a show of toughness or for the purposes of wanton violence. That’s not hard, that’s stupid and evil. As I stated above, every technique must have the end purpose of extracting information that will save lives. If it meets my earlier criteria (and I’m sure that killing someone or raping a child — if the child-rape at Abu Ghraib really happened and isn’t just a figment of Seymour Hersh’s imagination — doesn’t meet that criteria), I’m just not going to lose sleep over it. I’ll let our hard guys win the war so the softies can live in relative peace and safety.
Halffasthero
Stormy70 Says:
It was a sweet set up.
August 5th, 2005 at 12:21 pm
I had often wondered if the U.S. using naked women to torure the detainees might somehow increase the insurgency. I think my question was answered.
Defense Guy
Kirk
This won’t be the end of it, and your post indicates to me that you know what’s coming. I’ll state that while you are correct regarding the importance of the distinction between soldiers and civilians in war, you know full well that it makes the further distinction of protected combatants who enjoy the protection of the conventions and non-protected combatants who simply do not. This does not mean they are not protected by other rules, which I list below.
Here is the distinction:
It’s your source, which you seem to have cited incorrectly in some places.
Mike S
Maybe you should demand that the pictures being hidden by the administration be released so the accusations can be disputed.
For now I will wash my hands of bucket heads like you and just be glad that there are people like John Cole and Rick Moran in your party. I’ll console myself with the fact that a man who has first hand knowlege of torture has attempted to reign in the torture and abuse. Idiots like you probably think he’s a “softy” too.
Ignorant children like you who think this shit is “hard” will be proven to be imbiciles in the end. It’s just a shame that you have to take a piece of the country’s soul in the process.
IdahoKid
I am 31 years old. My entire life it has been a running joke that while in prison Bubba and friends are gonna gang rape you. Haha. Very funny. Now tell me again, when societies accepts gang rape as a valid punishment for marijuana possession, that I should get worked up over this so called torture. It is no worse a punishment for those who get it then the gang rape is for the kids that get that. Don’t go telling me Bush is responsible for degrading this countrys moral character. Those marines out there grew up in the same environment as me. Soceity has taught us what is acceptable punishment. Now that it’s making us look bad on the world stage, the liberals want to do something about it. Go after helping out the dumb kids in jail on drug possession. There’s much more of them, getting treated much worse. And often times, they get the extra gift of AIDs along with the deed. A life sentence. But I guess that’s ok, and find to make jokes about. Whatever.
mac Buckets
No, he’s a politician running for office.
Children engage in name-calling. And don’t worry about the nation’s “soul” (whatever hippie concept that is) when you should be worrying about its ass. Wars aren’t won by self-righteous posturing.
Halffasthero
[crickets…]
I am guessing my attempt at humour fell on some deaf ears…
Stormy70
I thought it was funny, just took a while to matriculate. :)
Bernard Yomtov
You might want to take a look at the fourth Geneva Convention. It describes the treatment of non-POW’s.
“Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.”
This specifically includes spies, saboteurs, and
” a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power”
Among the rights such Protected Persons have is:
“Art. 27. Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity.”
“Art. 32. The High Contracting Parties specifically agree that each of them is prohibited from taking any measure of such a character as to cause the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person, but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents.”
“The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons,”
In other words, even those who do not qualify as POW’s have rights.
Stormy70
It is not a joke and it is not funny. Throwing people in jail for possession is one of the stupidist laws on the books. You have made me think with your post, I never thought of the environment some of these kids are raised in. How many movies make the overdone joke of prison rape? It is used all over the place. The reality is more like Shawshenk Redemption, violent and ugly. Thanks for posting.
These prisoners are also crying out for help, and it falls on deaf ears, for the most part. There was an article where the reporters were trying to do a story, but they started getting bombarded with pleas from help by prisoners being sexually abused. I wish I could find it, but Google was no help.
pmm
I can’t say that I support enfranchising convicted felons, but it does hurt the concept of prison reform that its natural constituency is self-selected to not be able to vote…
I seem to recall the California AG making jokes about prison rape and Enron’s executives a few years ago. Was there any outcry over that? Just curious.
Kirk Spencer
Defense Guy,
If I’ve miscited, it’s during cut and paste difficulties. Frustratingly, something in this comments block was not letting me show some of the links (fought that for a bit and it may have messed it up). What I’ve blockquoted came directly from the protocols and conventions, however.
On the other hand, what you’ve cited isn’t part of the conventions or protocols. Instead, it’s the overview of the conventions as written by the authors of the Society of Professional Journalists who own the sight. They’re based on what the administration was claiming of these – the Gonzalez (etc) interpretations.
I’m sorry, but I don’t “know full well that it makes the further distinction of protected combatants who enjoy the protection of the conventions and non-protected combatants who simply do not.” As an example, let me cite Article 44 of Protocol 1 (just the first five of eight paragraphs):
There are two sections which dimly support your position. One is article 37 of protocol 1, particularly 1c:
The second is the entire section on mercenaries, same protocol, article 47:
However, violations of article 37 put one right back in the conditions of article 44. And mercenaries are treated as criminal civilians.
Violations of the Geneva Conventions do not remove the protections of the conventions from you any more than violating civil law removes the protection of that law when facing law enforcement agents. They make you eligible for prosecution of war crimes – violations of the rules of war. They can, if habitual (that is, national policy instead of individual act) be the basis of international action — treaties, points of condition for surrenders, that sort of thing.
If you are a combatant you get certain rights and protections, which can be conceptualized by perceiving that “killing enemy soldiers is war for combatants, and murder for civilians.” Some combatants are ineligible for prisoner of war status in the event of capture, but are still granted a number of rights. (As examples, not eligible for parole or prisoner exchange, not prohibited from labor that benefits opposing military, not exempt from certain legal charges.)
All non-combatants are civilians. As such they’re subject to a number of extra protections. However, they’re also subject to a lot of other laws – to include the “killing/murder” concept above. But I don’t expect you to trust my word – instead, let me conclude this by one more citation. Protocol 1, Article 50, in its entirety:
Somehow I just don’t see an opportunity for exception here.
StupidityRules
About showing naked women to terrorists.
Lets assume a ring of fringe christian pro-lifers who starts bombing abortion clinics. The FBI catches one of them and then decides to show him gay porn 24/7. Is that torture?
Sinequanon
Andrei,
You have to remember that this country is appalled by the natural instinct of sex and nudity, for some reason it is shameful in the deep regions of the Victoriana mind,…….. but violence? Violence is just dandy and seems to be readily accepted. Seems to me it should be exactly the opposite. I guess that saying from the sixties is appropriate:
Make love, not war.
Tina
The larger question for me is: how do the soldiers/interrogators decide whether someone is a “hard case” terrorist who deserves a pounding, an honest civilian with very bad karma or something in between? They are properly ready to scream, however, that the hallmark of a terrorist is to blend into civilian populations to maximize innocent casualties. So, who decides when the gloves come off?
The right-wing is tap-dancing as fast as they can to avoid coming to Mr. Cole’s conclusion. Follow the bouncing ball.
a) “We only torture terrorists” so any tales of abuse are assumed to be lies.
b) If the tale is too well documented, they shift to urban legends of breasts and fake menstrual blood to redirect attention to the “frat house” theory.
c) The next fallback is “well, Saddam was worse, so here are quotes from grateful Iraquis (you are reading Chrenkoff, aren’t you?).”
d) Next in line, liberal bias (remember, Walter Cronkite single-handedly lost us the Wietnam War!).
e) “If the President is right about going to war in Iraq, then any steps taken to prosecute that war must partake of that aura of righteousness.
f) Last gasp is “Shut up or you hate America.”
g) If a reliably right-wing pundit goes off the reservation, then…
[crickets chirping]
CaseyL
No, crickets don’t chirp. When a “reliably right-wing pundit goes off the reservation,” the rest of the wingers retroactively declare said pundit a RINO or a closet liberal, and attack accordingly.
There’s a wonderful line in LeCarre’s book “Smiley’s People,” when a therapist is interviewing Karla’s daughter. Her mother either committed suicide or was murdered on Karla’s orders because she wasn’t a good enough Stalinist. The therapist asks the daughter about it, and this is what she says (not exact quote):
“My mother died of insufficient faith in the inevitability of the historical dialectic process.”
Wingers are like Soviet Political Officers. They’re satisfied by nothing less than total, automatic loyalty to whatever the Party line is today, regardless of how today’s Party Line contradicts yesterday’s. Failure of absolute obedience and belief calls loyalty into question, never the merits of what is believed.
Biff Usually
The thing that makes me feel relaxed and comfortable is our absolute assurance that every single person we have detained, whether it be at Gitmo, or in Iraq, or off in some other country’s rendered custody, is a slavering, sub-human, murdering terrorist.
Otherwise, this torture thing sure would bother me.
Randolph Fritz
I am put very much in mind of the leftists who reluctantly, painfully came to the conclusion that, in fact, the Soviet Union, which was their great hope, was a brutal failure. It took time and time and time for them to do it, and not all of them did. And yet the signs were there from the beginning–no less a figure than Rosa Luxembourg recognized them.
The Bush administration also gave clear signs of its brutality from the beginning; there was Bush’s apparent sense of justification in the executions he ordered. Yet honest conservatives still believed in Bush. I am glad that his failings are at last being recognized. Yet I would ask our conservatives here, including our host ask themselves what else W. Bush has signalled which they are ignoring and how it is they were persuaded to ignore it. Let us know the monster for what it is, so that we may better destroy it.
The Raven
Now that Bush has gone off on his long, well-deserved vacation, this is an excellent time to reflect on his leadership. As the author of this blog has finally come to realize, when Bush waves his arm and yells, “Follow me!” it’s always best to head in the other direction.
Americans don’t torture people. That’s why we never see John Wayne or Humphery Bogart in those WWII films saying things like, “Well folks, let’s get these prisoners naked and tied up into some stress positions.”
Stormy70
Zell Miller, anyone? Seems like he came in for quite a bit of attacks from his own party. Lieberman, too. The Left and the Right do the same thing.
Stormy70
What is torture to you guys? Sounds like if a detainee is sneezed on, you will be crying to the heavens about torture. It is crying wolf about non torture that has hurt your message. Noone believes these detainees are being tortured when they are exposed to naked women or their air conditioning is turned off, or when they are being fed better than our military. This is why stories of real torture falls on deaf ears. If people had not been bombarded with stories for 2 straight years of Abu Garaib, then people might be listening. They’ve heard it ad nauseum.
Tina
Stormy70 is in a merged Stage of B and D now. The mention “stories of real torture” was very nicely done, however. Admits that torture actually did happen (tsk, tsk) but blames the MSM for not writing about the real stuff enough. So everything’s OK! Ta-da!
Stormy70
There is a trial going on, is there not, of an actual murder of an Iraqi general.
I need to see the evidence for ongoing torture claims from the Left, and not an article written by Seymour Hersh, who is not credible. I blame the MSM for beating Abu Garaib into the ground and the unsubstantiated claims from Gitmo into the same ground. I blame Amnesty International and the International Red Cross for making bogus claims of torture at Gitmo, then going down there, and saying nevermind, it’s not that bad. They have shot their credibility. Also, when the beheadings started in Iraq, the sympathy for terrorists in places like Abu Garaib and Gitmo took a nosedive. Most Americans do not care about terrorists being tortured. I think physical torture is wrong, but humiliating a terrorist is A-OK in my book. Not publically, but in his cell or the interrogation room. Mind games are fine with me as well. But I have yet to hear what the Left finds acceptable, just emotional cries of “America has lost its soul”,etc. For a reality-based community, reality hardly gets employed.
Biff Usually
Since W has never made a mistake, we can be certain that every one of the detainees being tortured is a terrorist.
Don’t worry, be happy!
Biff Usually
Wait!!
I just thought of something!
If most of these terrorists have been in custody for months or years, just what useful information are we getting from them through torture? Or are we just doing it because we can?
Stormy70
Once again, where is the proof for torture? Kennedy didn’t see it, Red Cross didn’t see it, the FBI didn’t see it. It is just another known Kos fact for the Left.
Andrew J. Lazarus
So Stormy concedes we murdered a POW General, and she concedes bad things happened at Abu Ghraib (except, of course, only to the extent that some hapless non-coms did bad things)—how dare we think that this is a pattern, she wonders. Why ever should we think that Gitmo under Gen. Miller in any way resembled Abu Ghraib under Gen. Miller?
It’s all sort of like calling Auschwitz a one-place fluke and denying anything bad happened at Dachau.
Tina
Back to my original question: how does MI/MP/whoever decide who gets the rough stuff, who sits and rots, and who goes home?
Stormy says “Most Americans do not care about terrorists being tortured.” True. If OBL is being dismembered with red-hot pliers, I’ll bring the beer. But I also care about the strong possibility that the red-hot pliers are becoming standard procedure. That’s un-American, and worse, it’s stupid.
For a political philosophy that has shed billions of pixels over the plight of innocent Iraqi and Afghan civilians, there seems remarkably little interest that some of them have been (wrongly) appallingly treated. No, it’s not Nazi Germany, you lefty morons, but it’s not good.
If your policy is “our intentions are good but you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs” (aka “s*** happens”) have the guts to say so.
Randolph Fritz
Stormy, does Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba count? You can read his report at http://www.agonist.org/annex/taguba.htm
Kirk Spencer
I should point out – a matter of fairness in my standards – that the US is not a signatory to Protocol 1. The four conventions, yes, as well as Protocol 2. But there are sections of Protocol 1 that Ronald Reagan and his staff believed to create fatal flaws in the otherwise desirable whole, and so he declined to send it to the Senate for ratification. As it happens, two of those “fatal flaw” are somewhat relevant to this discussion. First, the clauses that made civil war participants on both sides eligible as signatories also would make insurgents so eligible, and it was the opinion of President Reagan that insurgents should not be eligible for such status. Second, the staff felt that some of the ‘clarifications’ of rules differentiating civilians from combatants actually had the effect of blurring the line, giving insurgents better cover when among civilian populations.
bob
when will you knee-jerks realize that the rest of the country isin’t buying it anymore? About the only thing keeping bush afloat was that people trusted him and thought he was tough on terrorisim. Now he doesn’t even have
that anymore.
Gus
Holy shit, I feel like I just stepped into a time machine. Did the Abu Ghraib story just break? Is Rummy still Secretary of Defense?
Gus
IdahoKid, I’m perfectly capable of being outraged at two injustices at once. You’re right, but you’re also changing the subject.