I expect the apologies to start rolling in any second, from all those people who got their panties wadded over the word “gulag.”
Oh, wait, even better: I’ll try to anticipate the Police State Fanboy Talking Points. Like: “But Amnesty wasn’t talking about the Secret Prisons! They were talking about Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, which, unlike the Secret Prisons, were nothing like gulags! Therefore, Amnesty was way off base and offensive, and you should shut up.”
I don’t like the fact that there is no external oversight (which should change) but what do you propose the government should do with terrorists? I doubt threats of long prison terms will convince them to talk and name names. I challenge everyone to come up with real-world solutions that will save lives.
I challenge everyone to come up with real-world solutions that will save lives. it’s a crazy, out-on-the-limb kind of alternative, but how about this idea: NOT having secret, illegal prison-torture camps with no due process.
Due process, how exactly do you see that convincing them to talk? We are talking about people who have no problem with either mass murder or commiting suicide (or ordering others to do so) in order to make their point.
And by giving up due process how are we making anyone safer? Chris you beat me to the gulag comment – Dick Durbin should never have apologized.
We are talking about people who have no problem with either mass murder or commiting suicide (or ordering others to do so) in order to make their point. Yeah, but we can’t just lock people up because they’re Republicans.
Due process, how exactly do you see that convincing them to talk? We are talking about people who have no problem with either mass murder or commiting suicide (or ordering others to do so) in order to make their point. Well… serial killers have no problem with committing mass murder, either. Do they not deserve due process? Where do you propose the line should be drawn, and what’s the logical explanation behind that?
The ting that SHOULD go without saying: without due process, we have no idea whether these even are the people we want to get to talk about anything.
Well… serial killers have no problem with committing mass murder, either. Do they not deserve due process? Where do you propose the line should be drawn, and what’s the logical explanation behind that? US Citizenship is one line. Legal status as an “enemy combatant” is another. Methodology is certainly another – serial killers run loose killing small numbers of people in personal crimes, terrorists try to kill large numbers of people with explosives, chem, biological, etc. This problem is going to get a lot worse in the next couple of decades, as barriers to seriously destructive technology lower significantly. The only thing that fundamentally concerns me about these prisons is the fact that there is no independent oversight of the facilities. This is a problem, secrecy or no.
Plots of TV shows–the secret to an airtight defense policy. Well, I wasn’t being completely serious, though it nods at a serious point. Of course, you’ll be happily spitting about gender identity politics when that first bio-engineered killer virus mixed in some jihadi teenager’s basement is unleased on the population, and you collapse into a pile of vomiting, bleeding sickness with the rest of us. But at least you’ll kick off doing something that you love. And that’s kind of sweet.
Er, anyone ever watch 24? No actually. The darn video store lost half of the first season. I figure in January, when winter really hits, I’ll hit BlockBuster despite their crazy prices.
US Citizenship is one line. Legal status as an “enemy combatant” is another. Methodology is certainly another – serial killers run loose killing small numbers of people in personal crimes, terrorists try to kill large numbers of people with explosives, chem, biological, etc. This problem is going to get a lot worse in the next couple of decades, as barriers to seriously destructive technology lower significantly. And without due process one has no way of knowing that the people in question actually are terrorists. Just because somebody has decided that someone is an “enemy combatant” is no guarantee that they actually are. Presumed innocent should apply to everyone, not just US citizens. And before you accuse me of liberal naivete let me point out that our soldiers are far more likely to be treated decently if we actually follow the Geneva Conventions.
The ting that SHOULD go without saying: without due process, we have no idea whether these even are the people we want to get to talk about anything. We aren’t talking about random “ragheads” (just to be safe, I’m using a racist term on purpose) picked up for being in the wrong place. I’ve personally raised this issue with people in regards to Gitmo, even BEFORE the revalations about the actual innocent people held there. In this case, the “black” bases are specifically for leading terrorists none of whom are US citizens. Again, I ask, since no one has answered, how do you meaningfully deal with such people and save lives? I assume that people around here don’t like Bush, even being much more conservative than most people here, I don’t think he is fit to lead a parade. For a moment pretend that a democrat had won the last election. How should we deal with them?
We are talking about people who have no problem with either mass murder or commiting suicide (or ordering others to do so) in order to make their point. Yeah, yeah, that’s what they all say. Every government that puts people in secret prisons, tortures them, and executes them without conviction for a capital crime uses a similar excuse. Do you think the Nazis and Stalin era Soviets went around telling their people, “We’re going to put some nice, innocent people in gulags/concentration camps now.” Of course not. The Soviets put “counter-revolutionaries” bent on destroying their society by any means, including mass murder, in gulags. Or so they said, anyway. The Nazis claimed that Jews murdered German babies and ate their bodies. Surely you wouldn’t want such people walking the streets, free to find more babies to kill, would you? Faith in the government’s ability and willingness to only drop the guilty into oubliettes is almost always misplaced. Terrorists can be brought to trial and convicted if the evidence against them is sufficient, just like any other criminal.
In this case, the “black” bases are specifically for leading terrorists none of whom are US citizens. Again, I ask, since no one has answered, how do you meaningfully deal with such people and save lives? The truth be told, I am FAR less concerned over what to do with people like then than I am over what to do about people like you.
The Nazis claimed that Jews murdered German babies and ate their bodies. Surely you wouldn’t want such people walking the streets, free to find more babies to kill, would you? I personally have never seen a Jew (and living in Montreal, I know more than a few) eat a baby but seem to remember Islamic terrorist killing 3000+ people.
The truth be told, I am FAR less concerned over what to do with people like then than I am over what to do about people like you. I suppose you could lock me up. That still doesn’t answer my question though. How about this, for a simple and straight forward question without any chance of innocence. What should the government do if they caught Bin Laden. Should they put him in jail or should the squeeze him for all the information he has?
The truth be told, I am FAR less concerned over what to do with people like then than I am over what to do about people like you. Another sparkly shiny reason for the sane members of our polity to ensure that the hard left never, never, never, never again has a hint of access to the levers of power.
The CIA program’s original scope was to hide and interrogate the two dozen or so al Qaeda leaders believed to be directly responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks, or who posed an imminent threat, or had knowledge of the larger al Qaeda network. But as the volume of leads pouring into the CTC from abroad increased, and the capacity of its paramilitary group to seize suspects grew, the CIA began apprehending more people whose intelligence value and links to terrorism were less certain, according to four current and former officials. The original standard for consigning suspects to the invisible universe was lowered or ignored, they said. “They’ve got many, many more who don’t reach any threshold,” one intelligence official said. From the article Jill linked to. What a suprise: the people being held AREN’T all high level terrorists with immediate plans to attack the US. So, how is imprisoning and torturing people without clear links to al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization, muchless any immediate plans for a terrorist attack going to make anyone safer?
Faith in the government’s ability and willingness to only drop the guilty into oubliettes is almost always misplaced. Terrorists can be brought to trial and convicted if the evidence against them is sufficient, just like any other criminal. I don’t agree with Bush on several points, anti-terrorism will always be mostly a police job. Once you have a real terrorist in hand though, don’t you have a duty to make him talk Imagine you had a man in hand who you knew and admitted that he was part of a gang who planned and was ready to rape and murder 10 women. He refused to give enough details to stop the action. What would you do? Do you wait until the women have been raped and murdered to arrest his gang or do you exert “pressure” to make him talk?
From the article Jill linked to. What a suprise: the people being held AREN’T all high level terrorists with immediate plans to attack the US. So, how is imprisoning and torturing people without clear links to al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization, muchless any immediate plans for a terrorist attack going to make anyone safer? For what it is worth I started this with: I don’t like the fact that there is no external oversight (which should change)… I’ve also stated my belief that people where there is a question about their situation are different than people where their identity is known. My original question, that has still not been answered, what should be done with people we know are terrorists?
From the story: The hidden global internment network is a central element in the CIA’s unconventional war on terrorism. It depends on the cooperation of foreign intelligence services, and on keeping even basic information about the system secret from the public, foreign officials and nearly all members of Congress charged with overseeing the CIA’s covert actions… Hmmm. I wonder what the framers would think. Last time I checked, the Constitution provided for three branches of government. Bet we’ll be hearing a bit more about that.
Presumed innocent should apply to everyone, not just US citizens. Presumed innocent is not applied to combatants. And that’s the rub – whether you view this as a conflict or a law enforcement matter. Truth be told? It’s a grey area. I will say that the concept of applying domestic due process to all suspected terrorists and insurgents is naive, in my opinion. And before you accuse me of liberal naivete (oops too late 🙂 let me point out that our soldiers are far more likely to be treated decently if we actually follow the Geneva Conventions. Our current enemies don’t give two shits about the geneva conventions. None of them, in the current conflict. No uniforms, no humane treatment of prisoners, using schools and mosques as ammunition dumps, beheading captives, murdering children. So this argument, which would normally be applicable by the 20th century protocols of standing armies, means next to nothing in the current dynamic. If a US soldier gets caught, he or she is likely going to be beheaded.
What should the government do if they caught Bin Laden. Should they put him in jail or should the squeeze him for all the information he has? My own personal fantasy about what to do with bin Laden if he were ever captured is to drop him into an Islamic section of New York and let his co-religionists decide how grateful they are for his defense of their religion. Barring that, what’s wrong with putting him on trial and, if he’s convicted, leaving him in a federal prison for life? As far as the possibility of saving lives by torturing terrorists to make them “talk”, I think the probability is very low. Consider the 9/11 terrorists. Suppose they’d been arrested. The plot would have been foiled and waterboarding them would have no further benefit over simple arrest. If only some had been arrested, the others, if they had more brains than kumquats, would have either launched the attack or fled the country the minute their co-conspirators disappeared. Either way, the information provided by the arrested co-conspirators would be next to useless: it would either be too late to save anyone or would be irrelevent because the planned plot would have been aborted. No need for black ops, secret detention, or torture.
By the way, my above comment is not an endorsement of torture, or sinking to their level. I’m just saying that mental coercion (sleep deprivation, loud Christina Aguilera music, detainment, etc – certainly far beyond bounds of “due proces”) and the like should not be shied away from for fear of inciting bad treatment of US prisoners. This argument is a bit silly, in context.
Either way, the information provided by the arrested co-conspirators would be next to useless: it would either be too late to save anyone or would be irrelevent because the planned plot would have been aborted. What a bizarre conclusion – arresting Al Qaeda terrorists plotting a domestic attack and interrogating them would be “irrelevant.” (scratches head) (scratches head again)
Information extracted by torture is notoriously unreliable. The Nuremburg trials strike me as a reasonable example of how to proceed against people accused of monstrous crimes. And while following the Geneva Conventions may not do any good against terrorists, they aren’t the only people we fight and blowing off civilized behavior will come back to haunt us. We gain nothing by being barbarous: not reliable information, not good will, not prevention of future attacks. If anything we’re succeeding in building a fervent, larger group of people who have good reason to hate us.
Information extracted by torture is notoriously unreliable. Information extracted by extended captivity and interrogation – including psychological deprivation and reward – is not notoriously unreliable, especially when compared to the alternative (not getting any information at all). Look at the percentage of known al Qaeda leadership that’s been rolled up in the past 4 years. How do you think that happened?
Another sparkly shiny reason for the sane members of our polity to ensure that the hard left never, never, never, never again has a hint of access to the levers of power. Because revulsion at one’s countrymen blithely justifying torture, illegality, and police-state tactics is just sooo hard-left. People like you would toss – have tossed – the Constitution in the toilet. And there are hundreds of thousands of you, and you live next door, and you’ve been talking for a decade about how people like me are the enemy. I’d take my chances with a few terrorists slipping through a fair trial – though I resent it, and there are a LOT more of them now that this country has been run by people like you for a few years. But the snide, snarling, snarky, self-centered defense of atrocity that I see from people like the conservatrolls here? That is a big problem, and it’s got an increasing body count – which long ago passed the toll from 9/11.
As far as the possibility of saving lives by torturing terrorists to make them “talk”, I think the probability is very low. I’m not talking about low-level grunts. The information they could provide would be minimal. I’m talking about people with real information. This is a site where talk of abused women staying with their abuser is considered lamentable but a fact of life. Eventually anyone will break. Of course most sane people will start to give you what you want to hear. Presumably, the people involved know how much “pressure” to apply in the right circumstances.
I want to point out, that I’m not some rightwing nut who is proposing toruring anyone who we think could be involved. I’m simply asking how would these people, how do we deal with high-ranking terrorists in a way that will save as many lives as possible, in North America and abroad? The problem I think is that any answer beyond locking them up after giving them a fair trial, is tough for people on the left. You want it, god I would love it, but it isn’t so simple. If you thought Rove outing Plame was bad, imagine the secrets revealed at a trial. When you factor in the lives that could be saved with what they know, I have to ask, what would you do?
But the snide, snarling, snarky… I will say nothing but quote from you, pot meet kettle… The truth be told, I am FAR less concerned over what to do with people like then than I am over what to do about people like you.
James Taranto’s take on this story: Remember how upset the Angry Left pretended to be about the so-called outing of Plame? The sound you don’t hear is their outrage at the Post’s exposing something that really is covert and vital to national security.
The Nuremburg trials strike me as a reasonable example of how to proceed against people accused of monstrous crimes. The Nuremburg trials were preceded by the most destructive war in human history. Tens of millions of people were killed, and the civil and economic infrastructure of the wealthiest and most populous country in Europe was essentially eradicated. It’s very practical to have a Nuremburg trial once you’ve killed off pretty much everybody willing and able to hold a gun in your target country and once that country is broken, supine, and utterly at your mercy. Do you propose that we make that condition true for all of the countries that contain terrorists?
It’s vital to national security because the Administration says it is? If you consider the story at all accurate, there was and is plenty of doubt about the value of this program within the CIA. I think it’s fascinating how some in the right are happy to abide by “Trust Us, We’re The Government” as long as it’s government run by the GOP…
FWIW…Upon reflection, I’m going to withdraw the last sentence of my previous post as intemperate and not reflective of the conservative posters here. They have made every effort to be civil and courteous, and nothing is gained from my being uncivil…
I’m not going to pretend to be as educated or knowledgable as most of you, but I don’t see why some of you think it is okay to torture anyone. Ever. When would that ever be right? We’re ‘protecting our freedom’, but at what cost? Aren’t we, and forgive the cliche, the good guys? We should be holding ourselves to a higher standard.
I don’t like the fact that there is no external oversight (which should change) but what do you propose the government should do with terrorists? Right on. And we know they’re terrorists, because somebody told us so. Or, somebody would, if we asked them. And we can trust the govt. not to abuse this power. Because they just wouldn’t do that. Wouldn’t be sporting of them. As for those who were released from Gitmo because the US finally decided they were innocent … well, they let them out eventually, didn’t they? Would SADDAM let them out? Sure, they might have been tortured a bit, but fuck ’em – they’re not citizens, after all.
I don’t see why some of you think it is okay to torture anyone. Largely, we don’t. But at the same time, we don’t think being mean to a prisoner, serving him yucky food, turning the A/C on too high, or pointing at his willy and laughing is “torture”, either. That’s just psyops, and not particularly brutal psyops, either. Where actual physical coercion is acceptable is a fairly small subset of the detention/prison experience. Osama knows where the already-planted timebomb is, etc. Nobody advocates old-fashioned torture; we’re not going to put people on the rack and pull out their toenails. But waterboarding? A roughing up? The occasional trip to beatdown city? Eh. Caesar would laugh at what we call “torture” today. Torture is not all groovy and copacetic, but there are a lot of uncool things that happen in a war. This is a war.
Please reread Dianne’s post in (26). It is what always happens when governments get secret powers to intern and torture people. Note that it started with exactly the conditions cited–only high ranking officials with real information. But, as with any absolute power given to the government, it almost instantly snowballed and grew until the final result was a rediculously expanded scope of the secret prisions. Who is going to jail for imprisioning the low ranking people with no information in these prisions? Atrocity after atrocity has been justified by claiming that the people involved were certain that the victims were terrorists, or VC, or counterrevolutionary, or whatever. We, by god, are a nation of laws, not men, and if we cease to believe in them, then, to quote a song, we will look up to see our enemy, and see each other looking back at us instead. Respect for the law, and for liberty, for behaving justly IS what is supposed to make us different as a country. Giving CIA operatives, or hell, even the President, unlimited power to torture and imprision people for an indefinite period of time, in secret, is exactly contrary to what this country is. It is Un-American. The day that the US abandons rule of law is the day that I start looking for employment abroad.
That was a nice speech, BGS. What has the administration done in this conflict that has not been done in previous conflicts?
Well, you might have me there. After all, the US government’s record of prosecuting people who illegally do this sort of crap isnt’ good. But you still haven’t explained why the CIA should have unlimited power to imprision anyone they deem to be a terrorist, when it such powers inevitably lead to abuse in any government that grants an agency such power.
What has the administration done in this conflict that has not been done in previous conflicts? Yes, excellent point.
What has the administration done in this conflict that has not been done in previous conflicts? Well, I guess torture and summary executions are all ok then. But seriously speaking, Bill et al, don’t you have any clue as to why USA is one of the most widely hated states today?
But seriously speaking, Bill et al, don’t you have any clue as to why USA is one of the most widely hated states today? Since I’m not American and an outsider looking in, I can answer that somewhat. I also do business with people from aroud the world. I won’t claim to be an expert but below is some of what I’ve seen and heard. First hate is quite strong a word, you might want to switch to “resented” or “disliked”. First over-familiarity. American culture is in everyone’s face constantly. From Nike ads, Coca Cola, the Simpsons, Star Wars to Jennifer Aniston. Familiarity can breed contempt, especially when the image you see is so contemptable. You can’t hate people you don’t know and everyone knows the US. I figure this point alone is the biggest part of America’s image problem and there is probably nothing you can do about it. In some parts of the world, they resent the US for being a “great” nation. In the past, France, England, Germany, Japan, China, India, etc were considered powerful (or somewhat powerful) nations. Their power is now diminished because the US is the sole super power. You’ve relegated them to the status of secondary nations. It is a national pride thing. There is also the attitude that “we could do better” if we had their power. Other places like the middle-east, dislike of the United States, is often a convenient and safe outlet. They may dislike the States but they loath their own governments. It is often not safe to express open dislike of their governments so chanting death to America is a release. In Europe and Canada, the school system is quite liberal. We hear about the evils of western culture from the get-go. Since the US has become the epitomy of western culture, dislike of the US is part of our own issues. Finally let us not forget about tourists. It may seem odd to hear but I have rarely met someone who hasn’t met one or “knows someone” who met a rude American tourist. When these stories become part of the conventional wisdom, it does have an impact. The topics that non-Americans complain about change with the times. Eight years ago it was contempt for Bill Clinton’s show trial at the hands of the Replicans. Or waiting too long to get involved in Bosnia. Today it is Iraq and support for Isreal. From what I’ve seen these are just the focal points for complaints and not the cause of the underlying resentment.
I want to point out, that I’m not some rightwing nut who is proposing toruring anyone who we think could be involved. I’m simply asking how would these people, how do we deal with high-ranking terrorists in a way that will save as many lives as possible, in North America and abroad? This is the slipperiest of slippery slopes. How do we know who’s a high-ranking terrorist? Would you support torturing lower-ranking terrorists to find the names of the high-ranking ones who we can torture for life-saving information? After all, low-ranking terrorists are still terrorists, and it could save lives! How do we find the high-ranking terrorists? Maybe we could torture some people in sympathetic villages, and they’d tell us. After all, they sympathize with terrorists, and it would save lives! I don’t believe that torture works. Any torture that is effective enough to get people to talk will be effective enough to encourage them to give bad information. (And that, in turn, leads to torturing and killing more innocent people, and that creates more people who hate the U.S.) But more than that, I don’t trust the government with that power, and I don’t want my safety bought at that price.
But waterboarding? A roughing up? The occasional trip to beatdown city? Eh. Caesar would laugh at what we call “torture” today. I think you’re being a bit glib here. Torture is subtle. I don’t think you should be so sure you know what constitutes “real” torture until you’ve been tortured. I wonder if you’d feel the same way after you’ve had a “trip to beatdown city.” And BTW, ancient Rome is NOT the moral standard by which I want to judge my nation’s sense of decency. So leave Caesar out of it, please.
Remember how upset the Angry Left pretended to be about the so-called outing of Plame? The sound you don’t hear is their outrage at the Post’s exposing something that really is covert and vital to national security. I know this is a troll, but I just can’t abide letting it lie. This is just such garbage. What next, saying “The CIA conducts operations in foreign countries” will get you accused of putting them at risk? The article didn’t name any names (unlike Scooter et al), only said that the CIA is doing this in some countries in such-and-such part of the world. The answer to not pissing people off at us is not refusing to tell anyone what we’re doing, it’s not doing it in the first place!
“Torture is not all groovy and copacetic, but there are a lot of uncool things that happen in a war. This is a war.” Gee, Robert. What’s with channelling really, really bad macho movie dialogue? “Torture is not all groovy and copacetic”. [Our underground hero speaks softly and narrows his eyes through a stream of cigarette smoke. He pauses.] “But there are are a lot of uncool things that happen in a war.” [A shadowy figure behind him stirs and nods. Our hero fiddles ambiguously with his cigarette. It is the gesture of a man who has almost certainly seen too much.] “This is a war.” [Cigarette is abruptly crushed between his fingers. There is a faint, lingering sizzle. Screen fades to black].
I’m simply asking how would these people, how do we deal with high-ranking terrorists in a way that will save as many lives as possible, in North America and abroad What’s wrong with the way the police usually deal with criminals? The police are by no means perfect, but crime in the western world, even in the US, is really quite low, even without allowing the police to use torture. Furthermore, the crime rate is much lower in places where the police don’t use torture or any other “coercive techniques” but rely instead on straightforward interrogation in which the rights of the accused are respected, offering plea bargains and other deals for cooperation, gathering evidence, and so on than in places where the police’s primary technique for closing cases is to beat up random suspects until they confess. Consider, for example, the difference in crime between South Africa and the US*. Terrorists are just criminals. A little crazier and nastier than average, but still just criminals like any other. I don’t see any problem with treating them like any other dangerous criminals: get them out of society, prevent them from committing crimes when possible, but don’t get caught up in the word “terrorist” to the extent that you start thinking of them as superhuman monsters who can only be stopped by extraordinary measures and extreme violence. *Admittedly, there are other differences between US and South African society, of course.
“This is a war.” Technically, it’s not. War has not been declared by anyone on anyone. If it were a war, we might have a better chance of its having definite goals and ending some day.
Oh good, now we’re becoming evil-doers so that we can defeat evildoers. “But, it’s so much easier if we can torture the prisoners!”
Eric, that was a pretty comprehensive list, and I agree on most things. However, one thing I think you missed was how the US is throwing it’s weight around today, or shorter: USA is the big bully of our time. There is also a disrespect for anybody not american, some people in this thread thought US citizenship should decide wheter you had any human rights or not, and sadly that is actually official policy. (I know other countries have similar xenophobia, but you are usually safe from them if you don’t live in that country; not so with the USA, they could get you anywhere.) The current opposition to ICC, for example, means that US soldiers have a virtual immunity for crimes committed aboad, since pentagon will only raise charges if they need to sacrifice a pawn to save some high-brass. Other examples are civilian casualties in Afghanistan that are brushed aside with “it’s their own fault”, and Rumsfeld who wanted to build new nuclear weapons at the same time he was waging war in Iraq over alledged WMD:s. It’s obvious that USA doesn’t want the same rules to apply to them as to every body else. People don’t like beeing second class people. My rant-o-meter is beeping, better stop here.
The current opposition to ICC, for example, means that US soldiers have a virtual immunity for crimes committed aboad, since pentagon will only raise charges if they need to sacrifice a pawn to save some high-brass. Total BS. The US military routinely punishes its own who commit crimes overseas and has been for a long time. Fort Leavenworth is not empty by any means. Contrary to popular belief, Lynndie England is not the only imprisoned American soldier. I think it’s safe for me to infer that you believe the ICC has ultimate global authority, yet, as an offshoot of the UN, it has dubious credentials as to its authority. Just because it gave itself the title “International Criminal Court” doesn’t make it so. It’s almost a clever marketing ploy, isn’t it? It’s obvious that USA doesn’t want the same rules to apply to them as to every body else. What’s obvious is that the US, in a rare moment of clarity, has decided not to allow others with questionable motives (anti-Americanism) to have authority over its population. My rant-o-meter is beeping, better stop here. ditto…
Uh, can I just say something here? I spent twelve months in Iraq as an interrogator. If you know what you’re doing, you don’t need torture. It’s more difficult and time-consuming, but you don’t need torture. Using it also provides terrorists with more ammunition. It’s a vicious cycle. Not using torture also keeps the bar low, providing one with the opportunity to startle them later. We once took one guy into custody who we had to pass onto a different nation. What with one thing and another the guy got passed around from nation to nation till finally he was back in US hands. He’d been roughed up and he was astonished that we did not do this also. He’d planned and executed an attack in which six coalition members were killed but evidence was lacking and we had to release him. He was crooked after that, but until I left he participated in no further hostilities against coalition forces. You can break somebody without laying a hand on them. It just depends on how hard you want to work. High value targets are not going to be interrogated by some SPC. They’re going to get experienced interrogators who only ‘do’ the big guys, so there’s even less excuse to use torture in that case. Torture guarantees that you’ll get less info than more and what you do get will be useless. The real loss is one of integrity and soul, though. We have to remember our ideals and our principles. Torturing people is not part of that.
Thanks for feeding actual first-hand information into this rather than abstract nonsense, ginmar. Rob–people would be less cynical and would make these claims less often if this didn’t result in a three month sentence.
No prob. You know, that’s what I like about interrogation. It’s a battle of wits. The other side of interrogation is one that doesn’t get mentioned much. Most of the interrogations I did ended with me getting people released because it was patently obvious that this guy or that guy couldn’t have done what they were accused of. If we had more interrogators, we would have time to do it right, which would mean linking up all the info we get and….Well, there’s no point in going any further.
Not using torture also keeps the bar low, providing one with the opportunity to startle them later. We once took one guy into custody who we had to pass onto a different nation. What with one thing and another the guy got passed around from nation to nation till finally he was back in US hands. He’d been roughed up and he was astonished that we did not do this also. So I see the solution, have a third-party do the torturing, get the “victim” back and then when you don’t torture him, he’ll talk. I can see the huge difference there. At least those here supporting the use of torture under some circumstances are being honest about it.
Eric, why don’t you go fuck yourself? That’s not what I’m saying at all but you didn’t ask for clarification. We had to surrender custody of this guy to another nation on the same base. He was never out of the country; hell, he was never off the post. But we did treat him humanely and I think that with that guy it had a profound effect; we got comments back later that the guy went around talking about how good we treated him. With some subjects, good treatment really does work. I’d say that with lower-level subjects, it’s absolutely necessary to treat them as good as you possibly can because the way things are going now, totally innocent guys are being fingered by grudge-holding old enemies. That’s what happened with some of the people I interviewed. I notice you didn’t touch on that part of my comments but then again I suspect there’s a reason for that. I’ve posted aout torture on my blog and I really don’t want to repeat myself.
I think ginmar’s said all that needs be said on the issue. There’s a reason why John McCain can’t abide this stuff, and there’s a reason that some JAG officers came to the media with Abu Ghraib: ultimately it’s American servicemembers whose asses are on the line. And this agression: “For a moment pretend that a democrat had won the last election. How should we deal with them?” will not stand man. That shit is so tired already. There’s no consensus on the Republican side, much less the Democratic side, as if it had anything to do with it. Woof.
Eric, why don’t you go fuck yourself? That’s not what I’m saying at all but you didn’t ask for clarification. I haven’t been told go fuck myself since high school. It was physically impossible back then and is now (I doubt even the 9 inch rapist in the other thread could fuck himself). Since you mentioned it, please clarify how passing him off to other countries on the same base so that he can be “roughed up” isn’t torture as they describe it on this site. For the record, no one is talking about racks, red-hot pokers, etc. For most people, torture involves any physical violence. Do you mean to say that “roughed up” doesn’t involve physical violence? How exactly does handing him over to other people from other countries to torture him (on the same bloody base) different from doing it yourself? How is it different than the army handing him over to the CIA to “rough him up” and then having him back to the army to play good cop?
I think ginmar’s said all that needs be said on the issue. Did you actually read what he wrote. He admitted that the US army handed prisonners over to troops from another nation, stationed on the same base, to be tortured. The US army because they weren’t torturing them got to play good cop versus the bad torturing cop. How does that make any difference from doing it yourself?
What Ginmar said was that Ginmar and everyone else involved had to hand a prisoner over; I’m not sure if this was voluntary on Ginmar’s part. Ginmar also said that Ginmar and everyone else involved were very careful not to torture the prisoner while he was in their custody. Finally, Ginmar said nothing about whether or not Ginmar suspected that the prisoner would be tortured. And speaking of Ginmar’s comments on Ginmar’s time abroad, you should really read Ginmar’s blog, because Ginmar expands on the utility of torture using words like “worthless” and “damag[ing] to actual intelligence,” and “highly suspect.” All in all, Ginmar has spoken to Ginmar’s views on torture, and Ginmar’s not in favor of it.
Well I have a post awaiting moderation, probably because I quoted what he suggested I do with myself;-) which is more on point. I’m am not suggesting that he personally decided to hand the prisoners over. I doubt a translator would have the authority to do so anyway. Having to do something in the military means “orders”. In his original post, he specifically said that “victim” responded better because he was no longer living in fear of torture. The way I read it was that he was a sympathetic ear for a man who had been tortured. Would the results have been the same without the torture, who knows. In this case you are talking about a man who took up arms against an “invading” force. That is a little different from some terrorists who see it as a holy war. Finally, Ginmar said nothing about whether or not Ginmar suspected that the prisoner would be tortured. What does “roughed up” mean then? I have not read his Blog, I might if time allows. Maybe it would explain his response to my questions, maybe.
I’ll say it’s fucked up. Somebody – actually several somebodies – leaked classified information to someone not authorized to get it, putting American lives at immediate risk and costing millions of dollars as we now have to move these facilities and very few people here commenting on it seem to care one bit about it. Can we get some clear-cut guidelines on what classified information should be leaked and what classifed is really, really classified. On the whole issue of torture, I think a whole lot of folks (including people who should know better, like John McCain) have decided to expand the definition of the word to include loud pop music and keeping someone awake for a couple days. Folks, if that’s torture, then virtually every college dorm int he country is a torture chamber. Maybe we shouldn’t be so hasty to expand a word’s definition to inclde our own political bugaboos.
Jimmie – all due respect, but it isn’t just loud pop music, it’s the combination of loud pop music and being chained up sitting in one’s own excrement (which I’ve never experienced at college). Also, forcibly keeping someone awake can drive them permanently insane. generally – Kate Millett’s “The Politics of Cruelty” has a lot of fascinating case studies and commentary on torture, I recommend it wholeheartedly. Anecdotal evidence to be sure, but in the age of the witch trials, a trip to the thumbscrews and rack would impel honest God-fearing civilians to claim that they flew around the moon with the Devil. Plus no amount of pain will ever make someone squeal if they don’t know anything.
God,I just read Eric’s reply to me and I want to reiterate: Go fuck yourself. You’re reading shit into what I said and making things up that I did not say. Oh, yeah, asswipe, I’m not a guy, either. Gee, sexist much? Do you put words into women’s mouths on a regular basis? Because your assumptions and prejudices are legion. To wit: Since you mentioned it, please clarify how passing him off to other countries on the same base so that he can be “roughed up” isn’t torture as they describe it on this site. This implies that we transferred him to another country deliberately for the purpose of tortue. Apologize, you asshole For the record, no one is talking about racks, red-hot pokers, etc. For most people, torture involves any physical violence. Do you mean to say that “roughed up” doesn’t involve physical violence? We did not know he was going to be mistreated. In fact, we had every expectation the opposite would occur—he had worked closely with this nation and had been paid them many bribes, and so forth. How exactly does handing him over to other people from other countries to torture him (on the same bloody base) different from doing it yourself? Here again you’re making some pretty serious assumptions. And again, you need to apologize for telling me what I did and knew and so forth. You asshole. How is it different than the army handing him over to the CIA to “rough him up” and then having him back to the army to play good cop? You make assumptions about everything,including my gender. You’re wrong. You impute to me the most sinister of motives and actions, all based on a fairly straightforward few paragraphs. You desperately want to believe those things; you make shit up when it’s not there. How are you any different from a guy who assumes that the absence of a no automatically means yes? I can’t go into much detail but you are aware that there are other nations present in Iraq, right? We had no choice in handing the guy over but the biggest thing we feared at the time was that he would be offered an opportunity to bribe his captors. When he was returned to our custody he had been divested of his cell phone, brief case, etc., etc., and the US reinbursed him for those missing items. “Roughed up” means he complalined about being treated badly when he didn’t cop to planning the attack. Remember that attack I mentioned? Remember that? Six dead? I cannot believe that this has required this much discussion. I guess if you’re really looking to find fault with something you will, though, even if you’re the sort of person who automatically assumes a soldier is male. FWIW, when I went to my CO about several prisoners I suspected were innocent, he had already come to the same conclusion I had, as had all the other guys between me and him in rank. I cannot say that everyone else in Iraq was as lucky as I was in my CO, but I do know an acquaintance of mine was at Abu Ghraib during the relevant period and he blew the whistle. So, come on, Eric, why don’t you nitpick this to death in an effort to find fault with it? Or you could do this: If you want to know what I said or did, you could fucking ask me. Talk about arrogance. I’m an interrogator, also, asswipe, and not a mere translator. That means I interrogate people. Part of the interrogation course includes a class on the Geneva Convention. Now, I know you will sneer at that and make snotty remarks but there’s a few facts you might want to acquaint yourself with: Location matters in Iraq. Near Abu Ghraib, the general population is Sunni, and they are extremely hostile to coalition forces. I was down south, where the majority are Shi’ite. They were a great deal more friendly, to the point that we’d have dinner with them, get to know their family and so forth. The soldiers at Abu Ghraib were not interrogators. There also was an OGA there—other governmental agency—there. This is never good. Last warning, dickhead. You want to clarify something I said? ASk me. I’m in no mood to deal with some asshole who puts words in my mouth. Don’t do it again. And you still owe me an apology for accusing me of deliberately handing over a prisoner to be tortured.
Did you actually read what he wrote. He admitted that the US army handed prisonners over to troops from another nation, stationed on the same base, to be tortured. This is rich.You’re asking this person if they actually read what I wrote when you’re the one making stuff up out of whole cloth. I didn’t ‘admit’ anything but it’s interesting that you choose a word that implies ‘reluctantly conceded damning information’. “”To be tortured’ is unambiguous; you’re stating that I did this deliberately and for that purpose. Apologize.
Here is the quote: We once took one guy into custody who we had to pass onto a different nation. What with one thing and another the guy got passed around from nation to nation till finally he was back in US hands. He’d been roughed up and he was astonished that we did not do this also. Please tell me how I misinterpreted it. If my paraphrasing is off, please explain how.
Did you actually read what he wrote. He admitted that the US army handed prisonners over to troops from another nation, stationed on the same base, to be tortured. We once took one guy into custody who we had to pass onto a different nation. What with one thing and another the guy got passed around from nation to nation till finally he was back in US hands. He’d been roughed up and he was astonished that we did not do this also. Uh, Eric, it’s pretty clear to me. I don’t see how much clearer it can be. You see intent where there’s none. That’s your problem, not mine.
Yeah, Eric, you need to apologize as well. Please explain how your super secret extra sensory perception enables you to divine my secrets and those of the rape victim on the other thread, but you remain unable to identify something so basic as gender.
Again, Eric, check your assumptions. Ginmar specifically said that her unit “had to” pass off the prisoner to another nation. When working with a coalition, this is very common. Whether it was the same base or not is irrelevant. There was no intent to torture there. When the prisoner was in US hands, he was treated humanely, and the humane treatment worked as a preventative, at least in the short term. Which is in line with many theories of the containment of criminals. As someone who has worked with juvenile and adult offenders, I can testify as to the usefulness of humane treatment as well.
Maybe the the problem is you know the complete story and I’m just basing it on your one paragraph. Can you tell me why you “had to pass onto a different nation”? A insurgent is captured who is suspected of planning attacks on Americans. Why was he be turned over to other nations?
Eric, if you don’t know the whole story why didn’t you ask? Why did you make so many offensive conclusions? Why don’t you answer that first? You had an agenda from the get go and you twisted my words till they fit it. You need to acknowledge that before I have anything futher to do with you. You were out of line and you still refuse to come close to that issue.
ginmar>> What I gather from the quote is that the prisoner passed from US custody (“…had to pass onto a different nation.”) and then suffered physical abuse while in their custody (“…finally he was back in US hands. He’d been roughed up…”). When he returned to US custody, he was then more willing to talk because the abuse had stopped and didn’t look like it would start again (“…he was astonished that we did not do this also.”). As I read it, Eric’s questions are: Absent the “roughing up” done by the other nation’s troops, would the good conduct of the US’s forces have had the same impact? How does this differ from passing a prisoner over to the CIA to “rough up” before being returned? Would it matter if they’re passed to the CIA masquerading as troops from a different country?
Eric, if you don’t know the whole story why didn’t you ask? Your original words were pretty clear, I only asked in my most recent post to give you a graceful to pull your foot out of your mouth. I’m Canadian we are silly like that. You want an apology for my possibly misinterpreting your words before you’ll tell me why or offer exaplanation about how I was wrong. I’ve given you multiple opportunities to explain how I was wrong and you ignored them. Given with your inability to give an alternative explanation I have to consider my interpretation a quite likely one and I’m certainly not going to apologize for it. You may not appreciate where my interpretation leads, but that sir is your problem.
Talk about arrogance. YOu took my words wrong from the get go and now it’s my fault. Oh, yeah, and calling me SIR? Good job on the reading comprehension there, dude. Really good. I guess you really can’t read. And seeing as how Eric’s remarks aren’t awaiting moderation, I”m reposting this. Since you mentioned it, please clarify how passing him off to other countries on the same base so that he can be “roughed up” isn’t torture as they describe it on this site. You’re giving me a motive that exists only in your own brain and doesn’t exist in my words. For the record, no one is talking about racks, red-hot pokers, etc. For most people, torture involves any physical violence. Do you mean to say that “roughed up” doesn’t involve physical violence? We did not know he was going to be mistreated. In fact, we had every expectation the opposite would occur—he had worked closely with this nation and had been paid them many bribes, and so forth. How exactly does handing him over to other people from other countries to torture him (on the same bloody base) different from doing it yourself? Here again you’re making some pretty serious assumptions. And again, you need to apologize for telling me what I did and knew and so forth. How is it different than the army handing him over to the CIA to “rough him up” and then having him back to the army to play good cop? You make assumptions about everything,including my gender. You’re wrong. You impute to me the most sinister of motives and actions, all based on a fairly straightforward few paragraphs. You desperately want to believe those things; you make shit up when it’s not there. How are you any different from a guy who assumes that the absence of a no automatically means yes? I can’t go into much detail but you are aware that there are other nations present in Iraq, right? We had no choice in handing the guy over but the biggest thing we feared at the time was that he would be offered an opportunity to bribe his captors. When he was returned to our custody he had been divested of his cell phone, brief case, etc., etc., and the US reinbursed him for those missing items. “Roughed up” means he complalined about being treated badly when he didn’t cop to planning the attack. Remember that attack I mentioned? Remember that? Six dead? I cannot believe that this has required this much discussion. I guess if you’re really looking to find fault with something you will, though, even if you’re the sort of person who automatically assumes a soldier is male. You want an apology for my possibly misinterpreting your words before you’ll tell me why or offer exaplanation about how I was wrong. Possibly? There’s no possibly. You’re wrong. I already explained. You’ve listened to that about as well as you’ve noticed my gender. I’ve given you multiple opportunities to explain how I was wrong and you ignored them. Sweetie, I’ve written several replies to you. Given with your inability to give an alternative explanation I have to consider my interpretation a quite likely one and I’m certainly not going to apologize for it. You haven’t listened to one damned thing I’ve said. You may not appreciate where my interpretation leads, but that sir is your problem. My probelm is that your insulting remarks keep getting published but mine do not.
Yeah, my words were clear to everyone but you. You can read my mind evidently. YOu didn’t possibly do anything. Oh, yeah, and I’m not a SIR. You don’t ask for clarification: you demand it. Because five of my comments explaining myself are screened, I’m left fuming silenlty at this presumptuous arrogant preening little SOB. Sorry the profanity is shocking but this fucker calling a liar. Thanks a bunch for helping him.
Gee, the long copy and paste refuting his comments is ‘awaiting moderation’ but him calling me a liar is not. Depends on what shocks you, I guess.
Your original words were pretty clear, I only asked to give you a graceful way to pull your foot out of your mouth. Gee, this sounds an awful lot like a guy who hears what he wants to hear. I wonder in how many cases he only hears what he wants to hear. I wonder if he realizes GWB does this, too.
Wow, where did I ever call you a liar. Considering your aggresiveness towards me, I don’t think demanding an explanation that would justify them is out of line. I certainly didn’t mean to offend you although aparently I have. Here is what I read in your anectdote: – US troops captured someone who had been planning attacks against US troops. – He was passed to non-US troops on the same base where he was apparently roughed up. – He was returned to US troops who treated him humanely and he gave helpful information. What I want to know is why he was passed to non-US troops. If there is a plausible explanation other than he was meant to be roughed up, I will apologize. If your messages are awaiting aproval perhaps you have already explained in which case I may already own an apology. Please explain it to me. PS. Sorry for “sir”.
Eric, you dove straight in assuming evil intent based on your own assumptions without any justification. Ginmar’s original comment merely said that her group had to give him up to other authorities, and that those other authorities didn’t treat him as well as her group did. I can think of many reasons for a prisoner being handed into different jurisdictions, the most likely being that he commited crimes against those different jurisdictions. The US holds itself out as one of the more humane prisoner systems, so it’s unsurprising that some of those other jurisdictions had different standards of prisoner treatment. None of that in any way implies that Ginmar’s unit passed him over for the purpose of being tortured, or even with prior knowledge that he would be. Your interpretation ignored standard procedure in international situations and assumed ill intent where none was evident. It wasn’t Ginmar’s job to give you an alternative explanation, because frankly you went way out in left field to invent one of your own. Some of the assumptions you made were clearly unfounded and insulting. To begin with, the assumption that the purpose of interrogation is torture, when reputable interrogators know that torture is worse than useless (and is why both the FBI and CIA are infuriated with the treatment of prisoners at Gitmo and other areas…interrogation professionals know better than to treat prisoners that way). Then the assumption that the purpose of changing jurisdictions for a prisoner is again torture, when the simple, Occam’s razor assumption is that the other jurisdictions had some right to the prisoner based on where he committed his crimes, who against, or what they were. Finally, Ginmar has been posting regularly on this feminist site for a long time, and has several times corrected your assumption that she is male, as have several others, some subtly, some not so subtly, yet you continue to refer to her as “him” and “Sir”, etc. (and she’s a non-com, so sir doesn’t apply either, I don’t think) Gin has a potty mouth. She always has. She has a short fuse, because she has heard the same arguments repeatedly and has little patience for the same specious arguments being repeated as though their repetition makes them true. She’s not a “lady”, thank goodness, she’s an irrascible bitch with an agenda. She is, however, an honest irrascible bitch with an agenda, and if she says that her unit “had to” pass him off to other jurisdictions, and that they treated him fairly while in their custody, I believe her and don’t impute motives of some torturous conspiracy to her. Don’t get me wrong. Some elements in the US government are actively promoting torture. These people, however, are not professional interrogators, and professional interrogators wish they’d shut the hell up and let them do their jobs…which do not involve torture. There isn’t an “alternative explanation” needed here. Occams razor says her unit followed protocol and the prisoner was treated well when they had him in their custody. What “alternative explanation” did you need?
You called me a liar by putting offensive words and motives into my mouth and brain. You said directly that we passed the guy off to be tortured. That is offensive. We had to surrender the guy because we did not have jurisdiction. You could have asked if there was some other reason we gave up custody. You did not. You leapt directly into making accusations about why we passed custody. We were forced to. He didn’t just plan attacks. He executed them. Six people on our side died, plus God only knows how many civilians. At least one of those people was of the nationality that roughed him up. We had no reason at all to fear his ill treatment: what we were afraid of wsa that he would continue in his usual fashion and bribe his way out of trouble. To this day, I don’t know why he was not allowed to do just that. Don’t ever assume that someone is a man. And yes, indeed, I believe you owe me an apology. You could have avoided my anger by asking me to clarify. YOu did not.
“Terrorists are just criminals. A little crazier and nastier than average, but still just criminals like any other.” No, that’s good, I like it. Run with it. Worked for Kerry.
Everything Odanu said, everything ginmar said. I’m not a torture apologist by any means, but this is the wrong person to attack.
You called me a liar by putting offensive words and motives into my mouth and brain. You said directly that we passed the guy off to be tortured. That is offensive. We had to surrender the guy because we did not have jurisdiction. You could have asked if there was some other reason we gave up custody. You did not. You leapt directly into making accusations about why we passed custody. We were forced to. To begin with, the assumption that the purpose of interrogation is torture, when reputable interrogators know that torture is worse than useless (and is why both the FBI and CIA are infuriated with the treatment of prisoners at Gitmo and other areas… I am sorry. I did make assumptions but look at the thread this conversation is taking place in. The whole thread started with because it has been revealed that the CIA has secret bases where they are tortoring people. There has also many leaks over the last couple years about people being rendered to foreign countries to be interogated in ways the US doesn’t want to do itself. My assumption wasn’t a huge leap. I should have asked for clarification but your response to me didn’t exactly put me in the mood to be polite. Any way, I will again say I am sorry. I did not realize that you thought I meant you personally had handed him over for roughing up or I would have done so earlier.
and has several times corrected your assumption that she is male, as have several others, some subtly, some not so subtly, yet you continue to refer to her as “him” and “Sir”, etc. For the record, her first correction was hidden until recently as she has mentioned herself. I apologized for my having made that assumption as soon as I knew. If you scroll up now, it looks like she told me and I ignored her but that post wasn’t visible at the time.
I am sorry. I did make assumptions but look at the thread this conversation is taking place in. The whole thread started with because it has been revealed that the CIA has secret bases where they are tortoring people. There has also many leaks over the last couple years about people being rendered to foreign countries to be interogated in ways the US doesn’t want to do itself. My assumption wasn’t a huge leap. Yes, it was. You had no initial reason to believe that Ginmar was describing either conduct in a secret prison or extraordinary rendition, given, “same base,” “had to,” and “blabbing this shit all over the internet.” You didn’t just make the assumption, either. You continued to cling to it after you were corrected, even when you were pointed to plenty of reasons why it had no basis–Ginmar’s blog, for example; other commenters with different reads; Ginmar’s good reputation on a bleeding-heart liberal blog. Bear in mind as well that when you accuse a moral person–like yourself, I’d assume–of committing, facilitating, or advocating torture, they will probably use some pretty nasty language in response.
I think that assumptions have gone in both directions here. I never meant to accuse her personally of anything. I never even thought of it. If others including Ginmar read that into my statements, all I can say is the it was never my intention. I was responding to anger at accusations I didn’t intend to make and didn’t realise were there. I was genuinely confused about what I had done. Now that I understand how my words were read I feel pretty shitty. I am sorry everyone, I did not mean to imply anything about Ginmar behavior or character.
If you read that into your statements, it wasn’t my intention. I speak a couple other languages, Eric,and in all of them this kind of apology is known as bullshit. You’re playing the responsibility onto others. Don’t do that. I cannot help but wonder what these idiots who condone and legitimize torture think they’re doing. There’s very few individuals whose information is so urgent that it would make a moral compromise tempting. The rest—-Well, they’ll give up their information if you know what you’re doing, and you don’t have to lay a hand on them. Being nice works wonders. Sometimes being blonde makes them think you’re stupid. The result? You get information and you can sleep at night. But torture is irrevoceable. Once you do that kind of thing, you have lost. The struggle is over. Morally, that prisoner knows that they have more control than you do and the moral high ground. If you do something you know is wrong, what does that make you?
I speak a couple other languages, Eric,and in all of them this kind of apology is known as bullshit. You’re playing the responsibility onto others. Don’t do that. I was thinking the same thing on the drive home. I am sorry for making implications about you and those served with you. I am sorry for responding angrily when confronted with them. I am sorry for not spending two seconds to re-read my comments to see they could be read differently by others. I am sorry for talking down to you when you were justifiably angry. I am sorry.
I cannot help but wonder what these idiots who condone and legitimize torture think they’re doing. Most of us think that you folks on the ground in the field ought to be the ones making the call, and we argue against a priori restrictions being placed on your actions by civilians who are utterly ignorant of conditions. You believe that torture is always and everywhere wrong, and I respect that belief, as well as your practical experience in the field. Some servicemen and women with similar experience believe as you do, and others don’t.
Thank you. I accept your apology. It’s a matter of pragmatism. The fact is, the approach that always worked for me was this one: “Salaam Aleikum. Would you like a cigarette? Some water?” If you lose sight of their humanity, I guarantee that you will not lose sight of yours, you will lose it entirely. I spent a lot of time interacting with Iraqis. Then I had to find out that they were being killed off, one by one, by insurgents, because men who have much less combat experience than I do wanted to prove how macho they were by sendign other people to fight. Then they try and take away my rights on my own soil. I’d say that all the guys I served with in my immediate company were just amazing. I adore my CO to this day and would do anything, serve anywhere, if he asked. I can’t say enough good things about him, but his view toward female soldiers is significant. He said once that every soldier is an individual and that strengths and weaknesses are not gender-related. He expected every soldier to do their best—and they did. I don’t know that he’s the norm but I do know I could go to him with any concern at all. I do know that there are quite a few soldiers who do not feel as I do and I don’t think they’re fit to wear the uniform. I don’t believe for one minute that torture would be an option were we dealing, say, with a white population. Or a Christian one. Torture has never been an issue before now. Why is it now an option? Why this conflict? Why this population? I don’t think it’s the targets that prompted this decision. I put it down to our leaders. I’m sure they’ve recieved the same opinions. I’m also sure they’ve disregarded them. Torture appeals to some segment of the population. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to speculate on the affiliations of that segment.
I don’t believe for one minute that torture would be an option were we dealing, say, with a white population. Or a Christian one. Torture has never been an issue before now. Why is it now an option? You might want to get very friendly with some WWII vets and ask them how captured German soldiers – white Christians, by and large – got treated when the CO “wasn’t looking”. You might be in for a surprise. Not that it was a policy, or even all that widespread – but it did happen, particularly in the time between some German officer being captured by line troops, and him being logged in to a camp somewhere (most Western Ally camps were scrupulous about following the Geneva Conventions). When it happened, torture wasn’t an issue because it wasn’t talked about, not because it hadn’t happened. It wasn’t talked about because (a) our media either didn’t have the access that they do now or, when they did, weren’t particularly interested in the human dignity of the Huns, (b) our population as a whole is a lot less militaristic now than it was 65 years ago, and (c) in previous eras we were much more evenly matched, in a military power sense, with our adversaries and so did not feel we had the moral leisure time to debate niceties of treatment.
I’d guess that a lot of Christians would resent you linking them up wtih Nazis, Robert. Using Nazis as an example of anything except Naziism is pretty insincere. You’re ignoring the fact that torture is being explicitly condoned by this administration. And you’re also ignoring my point. White. Christian. Today.
You might want to get very friendly with some WWII vets and ask them how captured German soldiers – white Christians, by and large – got treated when the CO “wasn’t looking”. You might be in for a surprise. There was the time my grandfather was guarding SS prisoners with an unloaded rifle. Funny story, that one. Not to make light of the situation, but Robert’s comment reminded me of it.
I’d guess that a lot of Christians would resent you linking them up wtih Nazis, Robert. Using Nazis as an example of anything except Naziism is pretty insincere. Who said anything about Nazis? Most German soldiers weren’t Nazis. Whether Christians would resent it or not is immaterial; it is a factual statement. The Germans were mostly Christians. As for my sincerity, you asked why torture wasn’t an issue before, and I answered your question with an example. You’re ignoring the fact that torture is being explicitly condoned by this administration. And you’re also ignoring my point. White. Christian. Today. This administration is the first administration since Jefferson’s to deal vigorously with an enemy mainly comprised of non-state or stateless actors. Other administrations have condoned torture – cf. Vietnam – but were able to do so more quietly. The Bush Administration has had to formulate policies on how to deal with prisoners outside the scope of the Geneva Conventions (which are useless for stateless enemies), so of course they’re explicitly having to do what governments have implicitly done since Hammurabi. We aren’t currently fighting any white Christians. Your concern that we wouldn’t be doing this if it were white Christians is conceivably true. However, a look at our recent national enemies, and what we were prepared to do to them if we thought it necessary, would seem to bely that. We were willing to turn lily-white Russia into radioactive glass. In short, while your premise may be true, there is no evidence for it, and considerable circumstantial evidence against it.
Thank you. I accept your apology. Thank you. I wouldn’t have really blamed you for not accepting after spending some time reviewing the discussion above.
Robert, you’re being disingenuous. Knock it off. You focus on minutiae and it’s tedious. Nazis or not? Who gives a fuck? Knock it off. I’ve dealt with the people who believe torture is acceptable. I have read things that I know you have not and that I wish I had not. I lived in that culture for a year. When I say we would not do this to a white christian population, I’m sure of it. EricP, it’s rare that I get a genuine apology. So when I do I accept it. It’s unusal that someone does so; that says a great deal about you.
I’m sorry, I can’t get over the blatant violation of the ‘cruel and unusual’ clause. What a perversion this is.
Ginmar, I’m addressing your argument, point by point. I’m sorry if that seems to be minutiae to you. God and the Devil both dwell in the details – details that you’re all too glad to wield as weapons if you believe that they support your broader claims. “Nazis” aren’t a detail – they’re an instance of you being wrong, again, and cloaking it with handwaving and bravado, again. I’ve lived in that culture, too. I’d love to know what you’ve read that you think I haven’t. When you state a belief that we wouldn’t do things to white Christians that I know for a fact we’ve done in living memory to white Christians, I tend to reach the conclusion that you’re talking out your bum again. As for the cruel and unusual punishment clause, I wasn’t aware that you were conducting interrogations in Detroit.
Robert, you’re being disingenuous. You’re trolling, just like you do elsewhere. You do this on every feminist blog you post on. You like to wriggle and look for technicalities. You’re interested only in argument. White Christians vs. Nazis—sorry, you’re being cute here. Mention WWII era Germans and one thinks Nazis. That’s hairsplitting. Your C&U comment about Detroit? That’s straight out of Limbaugh—-“When you run out of argument, go for a cheap shot about, say, Teddy Kennedy’s weight. Or Detroit.” If we believe we’re decent people, then cruel and unusual ought to apply to everyone. You’ve lived in the culture, you say. Funny, I didn’t see you during the war, reading the classified reports, riding convoys. I won’t be responding to you again, Robert, because you’re a dishonest waste of my time. Until you stop being petty and trollish, that won’t change.