October 02, 2004
One Core Value We Should All Agree On...
Before it gets completely lost in the debates about the debates, I’d like to congratulate Sebastian for his post We Must Not Support Torture. It’s nice to know that there are still people on both side of the aisle (ok, page) that are ready to “police” our elected representatives and call out them when they get things wrong, and it’s nice to see an issue where Democrats and Republicans actually seem to agree.
I think Sebastian did a good job with the arguments against the current version of H.R. 10, but I can't help but put in my $0.02.
First, it's never been easier to send a letter to your representative, if you agree. Just go to congress.org. If you don't have a way with words, you could do a heck of a lot worse than cutting and pasting from Sebastian's quote.
Second, one of the most groups to speak out most ardently after Abu Ghraib was the professional military, and their opposition was both personal and practical: what does around, comes around. US soldiers become POWs also, and if we are not following the Geneva Conventions ourselves, it becomes much harder for us to pressure others to do so. Weakening the Geneva Convention is not supporting our troops.
Third, Sebastian's comment "it is politically stupid...this plays into all the left-wing fears..." understates the problem. Yeah, maybe you Republicans might lose some debating points to guys like me, but much as I despise your party's fiscal and environmental irresponsibility, regressive tax plans, and pig-headed support of a obviously incompetent commander-in-chief ... (wait, where was I? nice we all agree, good job with arguments, left-wing fears...oh, right, now I got it) ... much as I disagree with your views, I'm not gonna actually blow anyone up. But those photos from Abu Ghraib were probably the best recruiting tool we could have given Al Qaeda, and any appearance of supporting torture just makes that worse. (BushCo also lost a huge opportunity for damage control by not aggressively investigating and prosecuting. Someone tell me, why, why didn't Bush immediately insist on a bipartisan Congressional investigation, with someone like John McCain in charge?)
Fourth, and finally, something we can disagree about. Sebastian's statement "regularization of torture causes an explosion of torture cases" is supported not only by the experience of the French in Algeria, but arguably by our own experiences as well. The US started shortly after 9/11 with a few top-secret centers, outside the normal legal system (in Thailand and who knows where else) to wring information, by any means necessary, out of "high value" captives. The system was then expanded, by fits and starts and with some hand-wringing and backtracking, first to Gitmo and then (almost certainly) to Iraq, finally spinning out of control and into the public eye with Abu Ghraib. (Link: Seymour Hersh's original New Yorker piece turned out to be a pretty accurate version of this story.)
In my mind, this is clearly due to a lack of moral clarity at the top. I don't mean evil: I mean failure to realize that men have the capacity for evil, and that once you start ignoring long-standing rules of behavior for the sake of expediency, you need to be crystal clear and firm as iron about where the new lines will be drawn, and how they will be enforced. Bush and/or his appointeees clearly failed to do this.
Posted by William Cohen at October 2, 2004 01:10 PMwhat does around, comes around. US soldiers become POWs also, and if we are not following the Geneva Conventions ourselves, it becomes much harder for us to pressure others to do so.
It’s interesting that the beheadings started after the Abu Ghraib thing. I’m not saying the insurgents were following the Geneva Convention before it, it’s just interesting.
I also remember, after Nick Berg’s murder, watching Malaysian TV and seeing a young Muslim man saying, “What they did to that man was wrong. Muslims should not stoop to the level of the Americans.”
So what’s the status of this bill, currently? Is legalization of ex-patria torture still included? If so, why the hell aren’t the Democrats making more noise? Is this going to come out in the next debate? Or is the party afraid to be too vocal for fear of the old “soft on terrorism” ridiculousness.
Posted by: Gaelen Burns at October 2, 2004 11:11 PMGlad to see others concerned about this bill, to bad you had to make it an anti-Bush topic on this side. Sebastian did a good job in presenting the facts in his piece and yours does it no justice.
“Weakening the Geneva Convention is not supporting our troops”
- Agreed. (Q)But please tell me which country to have been involved in a war since WWII has honored the Geneva Convention and punishes those who break its law? (A)The US
(Q) Why add what your opinions of the GOP are? This is a very important subject that needs to be taken seriously. I disagree with the lefts govt. controlled bully tactics disguised as environmental concerns in order to take away property rights. I disagree with the lefts freebie initiatives which are paid by tax raises to all and their ridiculous idea that the current tax cuts only help the rich, made only to scare more votes towards the left. And the lefts total disregard for the Constitution by blindly and foolishly supporting a candidate like kerry. But when we add these things in here, people see this crap and ignore the real situation.
(Q)Why didn’t Bush immediately insist on a bipartisan Congressional investigation, with someone like John McCain in charge?)
(A)An investigation did occur and the people involved are being punished. Why is it necessary to have a so-called Congressional investigation every time someone sneezes nowadays.
AP: I know you were not making any false accusations or anything, just an observation. I happen to think that if we stooped to the level of the muslims, then this mess would be alot easier to handle.
Gaelen: You can find alot of information about bills and their status and other interesting info. at www.infowars.com
While some of it is far out stuff, this guy is usually pretty up to date on bills and govt. hearings.
> I happen to think that if we stooped to the
> level of the muslims, then this mess would
> be alot easier to handle.
So are you going to go to Baghdad and blow yourself up in a mosque full of Sadr supporters and their families? Should we start beheading prisoners at Gitmo? I can’t beleive you just wrote what you wrote. Are you being serious?
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at October 4, 2004 07:35 PMIf this country does not abide by the Geneva Convention, why would we expect the other side to abide by it. Isn’t this wishful thinking?
I also don’t believe that the enlisted personnel who are being prosecuted for the torture of prisoners at the Abu Gharib prison could possibly have committed these crimes without at least the complicity of their superior officers.
Some people would have us believe that all Muslims are evil. Isn’t that idea just as stupid and unrealistic as Muslims believing that all Christians are evil?
[Comment deleted for implying people of a different perspective don’t use their head — WatchBlog Manager]
Posted by: M. Bristow at October 5, 2004 01:11 AMI happen to think that if we stooped to the level of the muslims, then this mess would be alot easier to handle.
Wow. That’s just wrong. Randolph Scott, Audie Murphie, Roy Rogers, all my cowboy heroes just rolled in their graves.
Cf and AP:
I began my statement on stooping to the levels of muslims with “I believe” for a reason. To get your attention.
Now, why would Cf generalize that all muslims are terrorists, blow themselves up and behead innocent civilians and ask me if “I” was serious?
Why would AP say “thats just wrong,” to my statement?
I know neither of you two would “never” group all muslims as terrorists and you both are very concerned with what is happening in Iraq. I hope you will give me an honest answer to my next questions.
“What they did to that man was wrong. Muslims should not stoop to the level of the Americans.”
- Why was there no question asking if this guy was serious?
- Why wasn’t there a post asking, “So is this guy going to go to Iraq and free its people from a dictatorship, try to rebuild the infrastructure that Saddam let deteriorate or try to offer the poor people of Iraq a fighting chance.
- Why is it ok for anybody who is anti-American to make vast generalizations and disgrace all Americans, but when an American does the same thing, the American is the only one who is wrong?
(Answer) Because Bush is president!
People are ready to support “anything” that speaks against Bush. The party must be in control, even if it means inexplainably excusing everyone else and disgracing their own country.
AP: I know you were not making any false accusations or anything, just an observation.
That’s correct. Then you said,
I happen to think that if we stooped to the level of the muslims, then this mess would be alot easier to handle.
Then you complain,
Why would AP say “thats just wrong,” to my statement?
Because you weren’t making a general statement. I made a value judgement on your value judgment.
