I mean really, are you serious?
I was saying that it seems mighty difficult for the US to condemn Saddam for using torture at Abu Ghraib for nearly 25 years, when we are using the same actions against suspected terrorists ourselves.
Ridiculous drivel I would expect from such intellectual giants such as Bill Maher and Al Franken. To compare - and you DID buddy - what we do in coercive interrogation to what Saddam did is unthinkable. Have you the vaguest idea what went on under his reign? Rape rooms for husbands to view their wives being gang raped; digit removal; murder; electric wires attached to genitals; beatings; shootings; children with guns to their heads; and body parts being mailed to victims relatives. Our water boarding, sleep deprivation etc doesn't even compare. We could water board 24/7 for 100 years straight and STILL maintain the moral authority to condemn actions such as these. This is as faulty a comparison, and juvenile as I have ever seen. Grow up.
***
When is it okay for the US to publicly decry AND sacrifice thousands of American lives in the pursuit of a world without terror and torture, then to use the same devices and tactics to reach that goal.
Again, are we using ANY of what I described above? At all? This is nonsense of the first magnitude. I said I thought we were well within our rights to waterboard/preform coercive interrogation, not set up rape rooms! When have we EVER employed those "same tactics" and when have I EVER suggested we should? The entire premise is a complete red herring. And since I have never advocated it I can only assume you are comparing the actions we have taken to those of Saddam & co. ASININE in the extreme. If you didn't mean this then take some classes on proper sentence writing because it sure as hell is the message you sent.
Also, I have never heard of the "war on torture." I'm not saying real torture is a good thing (quitw the opposite), but do not attempt to lump that word in with the word "terror" which has in fact been publicly articulated. they are not the same and we are not in a "war on torture."
****
To deny that the Abu Ghraib fiasco was a public relations disaster of the first magnitude..
If I hear that name and that "scandal" repeated one more time. The national media spends weeks on end showing the pictures, repeating the story, following the court martial, but where is the pictures, story and video of Nick Berg? Beheaded by Al Qeada on film. Or the countless others. Was our scandal bad, sure, shouldn't of happened, but it was blown completely out of context and was a PR nightmare because of the military-hostile press we have in this nation. Anyone who wants to point to that in any argument involving the war on fascist Islam can quite frankly kiss my ass.
***
Not to mention the very simple but very important fact that most intelligence agencies (including ALL of our own) clearly state that information gained by torture is NEVER trustworthy. It seems even the CIA and the NSA have learned something from their professional ancestors in the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem witch-hunters, doesn’t it?
BS. Show me. Show me the document or report in which the CIA issued that said waterboarding et al are counter productive. I want to see it. I don't believe their exists a consensus on this at all. It's what you "wish" was true. Again, wishing is for children and rodents named Mickey.
None the less, some of these men have been in custody since Oct. of 2001... That’s really close to 6 years in a cell. If they haven’t spilled all they knew by now… maybe they aren’t going to. I mean for God’s sake, look at how the world has changed in 6 years… Saddam Hussein was not only alive, but still the undisputed ruler of Iraq; only 1700 bodies had been recovered from Ground Zero, John Kerry was still 100% behind the President and hadn’t thought of running for office yet, and Ronald Reagan was still very much alive. What can these guys know that would help us out even a little bit?
Have you fallen and received a head injury lately? I mean really, you can't be THAT naive as to recite what looks to be ACLU talking points. We are keeping them there because these are the worst of the worst and military intel has EVERY reason to believe that if released they will simply recycle back into jihadist activity, i.e. TRYING TO KILL US! I mean, I'm sure at some point our German POW's had given up all the intel they had, so why not release them? Huh? Or put them into our criminal justice system? WE ARE AT WAR you numbskull! "Okey dokey Mr. Jihad, you can go now, we got all the info we need, just promise not to shoot at us anymore." Again, grow up.
****
What little we might gain from using it in the short term, only comes back to haunt us in the long run later.
Wrong. The CIA reported that waterboarding was used successfully on the internationally infamous Kalid Sheik Mohammad. Responsible for a Pan Am explosion, one time #2 to Bin Laden, and Mohammad Atta's uncle no less, and even more important, the reputed master mind of 9/11. Water boarding was used on him to disclose several terrorist plots and terrorist locations. It was real info that saved real lives. Whether we tortured him or not, or whether you consider water boarding torture (as you clearly do) it wouldn't have changed the behavior of one jihadist or given us any less moral authority to condemn those who employ rape rooms and the like. You're just dead wrong on this. Childlike really. Watching much MTV lately are you?
FR
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Ok, dummy me. Please refer to my comment at the end of "A Great Line." Didn't realize the argument had spilled to this one too.
You have a singular ability to piss me off, Ryan… I swear!
Did I not say that the prisoners at Gitmo were being treated better than most of the “home grown” convicts doing their time at any one of 50 US “Big Houses”? Did I not state very clearly that “torture” and “interrogation” were two separate things entirely? I must not have… *sigh*… my bad.
At no point should any rational adult that manages to come across this blog think that I am accusing the US Army or any other institution of this Government of crimes that compare to what Saddam managed in his 25 year reign of terror… but YOU do, and on a regular basis, too. Why is that?
I will refrain from sarcasm and disdain in my rebuttal, and simply go on the assumption that you were correct in your assessment that I am failing to write clearly.
I understand the difference between “squeezing” a prisoner for intel and “torturing” him simply for the fun of it, or from some misguided sense of justice. Sleep deprivation and “water-boarding” are methods currently employed by the US military to interrogate prisoners… and both are illegal in the “civilian” sector. I submit for your review:
UNITED STATES CODE: TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I--CRIMES CHAPTER 113C--TORTURE Sec. 2340. Definitions As used in this chapter-- (1) ``torture'' means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control; (2) ``severe mental pain or suffering'' means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from-- (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and (3) ``United States'' means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.
No one could possibly debate the fact that when the human body is subject to the violent, gag reflex action brought about by having quantities of water poured over the head to the point of inhibited breathing, and the resulting amounts of water taken into the lungs causes the subject to experience the “threat of imminent death”, or at least the “profound disruption of the senses”. Sleep deprivation falls more into the “mind altering procedure calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses”, but is still categorically illegal by the US Code of Federal Regulations.
Am I saying that all such incidents should cease and stop at once? Or that they have no place in the military or intelligence gathering communities? No, I am not… only that this kind of “conflict” with what the US is perceived to say by the world at large, and what we actually do, compromises our ability to lead the world in the War on Terror… or any other effort.
When the US is put in a position of discredit because of the actions of a few “bad apples” at a place like Abu Ghraib, it compromises our ethical position across the board. I’m not suggesting that we are “wrong” or “without morals”… only that it makes us look especially silly to the rest of the civilized world. Our ability to function within an international community hinges on our “reputation” as dependable, trustworthy, honest and ethical in our foreign affairs and in our implementation of justice.
Of course, I understand perfectly well why the prisoners are still at Gitmo… and I did not say they needed to be released to return to their former anti-American ways. I perhaps should have phrased my statement in another way…
If the US is going to keep these men incarcerated for the duration of the “war”, then I am of the opinion that they need two things: some form of recognized status as either criminals or POWs and access to some form of representation (something they may have already, and I am simply unaware of) to the authorities holding them ASIDE from their guards. This last is especially important as the Feds have already announced that they only intend to charge roughly 100 of the 350 men still held. That being made public, what is the “status” of the other 250+ prisoners?
Until such time as you, or someone else better able or more informed, can explain the need to allow such glaring conflicts to exist between what we “say” and what we “do”, then I’ll ask you to refrain from your sarcasm and disdain, and limit yourself to voicing your opinion… in the same manner I am.
Damn, you can piss me off!
I have had a few hours to let some of the rancor die down, and thought I’d add this:
Perhaps where I was unclear in my earlier postings is that I feel a certain degree of ambiguity towards the entire issue. I realize that this is an imperfect world, and that all the good intentions possible won’t make it a better place as long as people like the men who kill themselves and thousands of others simply to make a statement or prove a point can remain at large. To counter such men’s actions, it may be necessary from time to time to forgo the “due process” and simply get the job done, as quickly and painlessly as possible… and this may mean that some liberties and rights otherwise considered “inherent” are forgotten for a time, in deference to the “greater good”.
My concerns, as voiced previously, stem only from the institution of policy that directs individuals or organizations to forgo these said liberties and rights as a matter of course. The soldiers at Abu Ghraib who abused the Iraqi detainees were acting independently of established policy, and have answered for their actions accordingly and to the fullest extent of the law. I was not saying otherwise earlier… only using a very public and well-documented case of abuse as an example of inconsistency and conflict of interest within the prosecution of the “War on Terror”.
If I were truly as ignorant as Ryan suggested, I’d be quoting the Fourth Geneva Convention just like all the rest of the screaming liberals calling for the castration of George W. Bush on a daily basis… however, I realize that it is the direct result of actions taken by the insurgents and terrorists that deny them the cover that convention would have provided: they do not identify themselves as combatants, they represent no formal power or region of state, and do not adhere to the accepted protocols of actions directed at civilian non-combatants. Thus, they are not allowed to avail themselves of the rights and privileges afforded to POWs in the post-1949 definition of the term. (The fact that they do not follow or adhere to the protocols in and of itself is NOT grounds for refusal of these rights, but that is another topic) As a result of these considered and conscience actions taken by these insurgents and terrorists, they are not (or should not) always be allowed to gain by these “privileges”.
I only voice concern over policy (real or perceived) that shows an inconsistency with accepted, and implemented, US laws and statutes as defined by the Federal Government. When this happens, I feel we look hypocritical and foolish at a time when we can afford to look neither.
Post a Comment