Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

You forgot to mention that the vast majority of these guys are completely innocent. Have you heard about those two British Prisoners imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay for 3 YEARS? BushCo claimed they were in Afghanistan getting Training. It took the British Secret Service less than a week to prove that they were never in Afghanistan at all and had absolutely no connection to Al Queda. Even then, this Administration dragged its feet and kept them incarcerated despite KNOWING they were innocent.

Sebastian:
If you were in a less moderated Blog, the Bushies would already be calling you Traitor, Liberal and UnAmerican by now.

S.H., you said;
“The practice of extraordinary rendition began as a classic Clintonian hairsplitting exercise in the mid 1990s to avoid the clear letter of the laws which prohibit America from using torture. This is the kind of avoidance of the law and ridiculous semantics that we decried when employed by the Clinton adminstration. It has gotten no more attractive just because Bush has decided to continue the program.”

AND

“The mid-term elections are two years away. If we can’t make a principled stand now, we never can.”

-Since both parties appear to be at fault in your article, who do you plan to vote for? How will you make a ‘principled stand’?

When the planes hit the towers and the reality of that hit me, I knew almost instantly that 9/11 and its aftermath would test America’s character.

I don’t think Americans are all that squeamish about inflicting harm on our enemies. As a matter of fact, I think we’re rather bloodthirsty when it comes to that. And I’m not excluding myself or the Democrats by any means.

That said, I don’t think most of us would mind leaving the innocent out of it, though, and this is what this is about. Bugcrazy, I think the Republicans have a liability, and that is that they have made getting tough on terrorists and being impatiently reckless equivalent

The Democrats of have the advantage of having no political liability among their constituents concerning either getting tough on terrorists or safeguarding the innocent. It will take a thankless effort on the part of the Republicans, but ultimately it is worth it. When our policies support Democracy elsewhere in the world, we show our true face to the world. When they do otherwise, they paint a picture of us as villains that is very unfair to the average American. Institutionalized torture and support for inhumane governments will only serve to put a mask of blood over the true face of the American people.

“Bush has decided to continue the program”

Clinton’s policies and priorities matched my values a lot better than his Republican opposition did, but even his supporters never held him up as a model of moral behavior. Still, I was disgusted to read in the New Yorker than the “outsourcing torture” process started under Clinton.

But if Clinton started it, Bush has continued it and expanded it - continued it, in fact, after Abu Ghraib, a perfect excuse to recognize that things have gotten out of hand if there ever was one.

Sebastian is way right. This is just plain evil - we’re becoming the enemy we’re fighting against - and on top of that, the benefits are extremely dubious. Clinton’s involvement means that this is NOT a partisan issue. There’s no excuse not to speak out to your congresspeople and make it plain that you consider torture BY Americans to be dispicable.

Sebastian -
I’m with you 100%. What has shocked me most in this ongoing WatchBlog debate is that there are always a few righties who come out and defend torture.

The idea that torture could be an acceptable practice had never occured to me. But in a world of relativism, without some absolute values to appeal to, it becomes a practical debate - about effectiveness, reputation, etc. I don’t think we should even enter that debate. It’s winnable, but it’s also losable, and this is not a question America can afford to be wrong on. Civilization hangs in the balance; barbarism, not barbarians, threaten to conquer us.

Torture is also counter-productive in the War on Terrorism; the images of Abu Grahib only further enraged young Muslim minds througout the Middle East. This creates more terrorists who have all the more reason to commit terrorist acts against Americans and their allies. I do not think the United States should give the terrorists any reason or excuse to attack us.

The Bush Administration’s “my way or the highway” method of dealing with its critics, it’s detractors and even other foreign countries is going to come back and bite us in the ass really hard. The 3063 people who died on 9/11 is a drop in the bucket compared to what will happen if our water supply is attacked or one of our cities experiences a nuclear attack. When/If that happens, my fear is the rest of the world will sit back and say, “Dumb Americans, they’ve been asking for it for years.” By making enemies of our allies Bush has done more damage to our country’s long-term health and any damage a terrorist can do.

I’m also in complete agreement with Sebastian on this issue. This is not about a feeding-fest on the Bush administration - as Bugcrazy and Aldous seem to think it is - it’s about Republicans moderating our own party and standing up for principles. Effective moderation must come from within the party, not from Democrats.

Perhaps a good start would be appointing John McCain, and other Americans who have been tortured, to a panel to review the appropriateness of procedures currently used. It’s hard to say whether something qualifies as “torture” when you haven’t experienced it. That needs to be followed (if it hasn’t been already) by a complete changing-of-the-guard of our soldiers in charge of guarding and extracting information from all Iraqi and Afghani detainees. And although I have increased respect for Rumsfeld after hearing that he offered his resignation to the President on two occasions, Mr. Bush should probably find someone to replace his position. He is too closely tied to interrogation techniques.

Sebastian raises an excellent point - and this isn’t the first time he’s mentioned it - that torture simply isn’t an effective means of getting useful information. There isn’t much information that can be gathered by average detainees, just as there isn’t much information that our enemies could get out of capturing an Army private. The place to be getting information is on the ground - by increasing our human intelligence, as retired general Tommy Franks suggested on his way out of Iraq.

“Perhaps a good start would be appointing John McCain, and other Americans who have been tortured, to a panel to review the appropriateness of procedures currently used.”

Interesting - when Abu Ghraib broke, my first thought was, there should be a Congressional investigation of this, and they should put McCain in charge. Good suggestion, Ghandi.

Gandhi raises the point that I’ve tried hard to make here on WB. Comments from ‘the enemy camp’ (although perhaps valid) _will_ be ignored (not rightly so) by those they are directed at. What’s needed is pushing from within the controlling party. And on this topic, it shouldn’t be too hard. This is something that _every_ Republican (Bush supporter or not) ought to be asking what they can do to change. Despite comments to the contrary by some, the republican party is hardly filled-to-the-brim with pro-torture advocates. This administration’s “our way or the highway” (thanks, Cameron) attitude does more than alienate our allies, it alienates their own moderate support at home. The point: the Republican party (at least some of it) is going to have to get behind interrogation reform if anything is going to change. Democratic support is nice (we don’t have to convice every Republican), but not enough to get it done. The urgings will have to come from within the Republican party.

Gandhi:
“It’s hard to say whether something qualifies as “torture” when you haven’t experienced it.”

The Brits have been looking into what qualifies as torture, in fact they recently had a reality TV show (which I doubt will never be shown in America) where seven volunteers (three were Muslim), agreed to be subjected to some of the conditions and methods used at Guantanamo. They were detained for 48 hours by a team of former US military interrogators.
I think it would be a good idea if American’s had a chance to tune in to something similar.
Maybe if people saw what is being done in our country’s name with their own eyes they’d then get a clue, instead of talking real tough in a pathetic attempt to shame us whenever they’re trying to justify torture.

“This is not about a feeding-fest on the Bush administration - as Bugcrazy and Aldous seem to think it is - ….”

did I say that?

I for one believe that the only interrogation techniques that these people understand is torture, they practice it freely and expect it if captured. The only difference is that with the U.S. as interrogators they are assured the death penalty will not be applied. To save the lives of thousands or more I think that a pair of panties on your head is worth the humiliation of torture. Get real people, we live in a real world where your idealistic fantasies of saying pretty please do not get results.

“The only difference is that with the U.S. as interrogators they are assured the death penalty will not be applied.”

Not so. At least one prisoner in Afghanistan and one in Iraq died under conditions which raise a strong suspicion that they were beaten to death.

Everyone who is in favor of torture seems to think that it is saving “thousands of lives”. That is ridiculous, since most of these people have been captured for years. Even assuming we could catch someone higher up on the brink of the culmination of a massive attack (a very unlikely scenario), don’t you think the terrorists would change their plans upon hearing that someone who knew them was captured?

On the contrary, both wars in iraq were marked by massive surrender to the US forces. In Desert storm, soldiers were surrendering to reporters if they were american. The reason for this is that the USA has always maintained (at least publicly, until recently) that torture is abominable and will not be practiced. At the very least, they know it will be better to be captured by us than where they would otherwise be.

Now that the world knows that degrading a person’s religion, long-term isolation, perpetual confinement, waterboarding, sexual humiliation, farming out of torture to other countries, and all of the other practices approved by our government, not to mention those that are not approved but still occurr, are the new way that the US treats captives, don’t you think that they may be more inclined to fight than to surrender? The benefits of being merciful and living up to our own prinicples is dramatic and concrete. Violating them only degrades us as a nation and makes us targets for the rest of the world, especially given what pathetic “information” is gleaned from torture.

Hmmmmmm, one in Afghanistan, one in Iraq, only suspicious circumstances? Not a valid argument. I am sure that the U.S. does not choose willy nilly the persons to subject to more intense interrogation. Only the worst, the most dispicable, the most inclined to disregard human life for their cause are subjected. We must protect the sanctity of life in the free world, sometimes using tools that are not popular but effective. We in the U.S. have been conditioned to value life, not so for those who would see us die for no other reason than we represent all that is enviable. Torture?, you have no idea what these people are capable of. What we do or endorse is in no way comparable.

Kastel is a perfect example of how non-Christian folks populate the right’s column - no ‘do unto others as one would have them do unto you’, in remarks like his. Heathens, they are everywhere.

Cameron,

“Dumb Americans, they’ve been asking for it for years.”

This is precisely the view of Ward Churchill for instance who wrote right after 9/11 that the people in the twin towers were complicit in Amerikkka’s crimes against humanity.

Torture? What torture? Sexual temptation to the ‘pure’ muslim? If we were going to really be ‘culturally sensitive’ to the detainees we should immediately expel all female servicewomen from the armed forces. After all in the Taliban they are beneath dogs are they not? Are you sure you understand the moral dimensions here? I think some reality needs to shine into this argument.

I’m sorry but I find the lack of distinctions a bit disturbing. I know we have been beaten up unjustifiably in the past with ideas of torture that involve what I would call merely aggressive interrogation or in some cases just cultural insensitivity. But we are not talking about ‘torture’. We are talking about torture. The kind that leaves people physically maimed and mentally scarred. Like the awful things that the Viet-Cong did to our prisoners of war. This is not using the word ‘torture’ to get an effect, it is talking about actual torture. Diverting attention with a hugely expanded definition of torture is just as bad when you are trying to avoid appropriate evaluation as it is when our opponents have inappropriately used it to tar us in times past.

Sebastian, the I’ Red Cross has reported a rather large number of deaths in American POW prisons, the bulk of which have still not been fully investigated if at all. The kind of tactics that can result in death of prisoners underlies TORTURE on a much larger scale which did not end in deaths.

I know Republicans want a smoking gun for each and every claim of torture, but, these are the same people who claim that arrestees in Iraq and Afghanistan and Guantanomo don’t need no stinking evidenciary trials. So which is it, Republicans, do you think evidence is a good thing or a bad thing? Or is it relative to whether such evidence would indict Americans or make heroes of them?

Integrity you know stems from universal principles, not from whatever is convenient and works at the moment.

Sebastian, kudos on an excellent article which should be required reading on both sides of the political divide. Your integrity is showing, and I believe a vast majority of Americans regardless of party agree. Unfortunately some feel obliged not to say much about what’s wrong on their side of the artificial red/blue line, and we all suffer because of it.

As a self-avowed liberal, with a sprinkling of conservative values as well, I was working hard at getting folks to oppose the nomination of Alberto Gonzales. Regardless of his qualifications otherwise, and his ‘likeability’, his association with a policy which was too tightly linked with the loosening of definitions that would inevitably become associated with errant behavior at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and elsewhere, made him an unacceptable choice to become Attorney General of these United States.

As an American, before being a Democrat, my greatest disappointment was not the lack of unanimity among the Democrats in opposing him, but rather the unanimity of Republicans in supporting his nomination. I’ve got to believe that there were more than a few Republicans in the Senate who were peeved that Bush would put them in a position of having to support Gonzales, but I was grieved that not even one was independently minded enough to vote their conscience. That in spite of an absence of public endorsements for Gonzales from the moderate right columnists.

Sebastian, I hope conservatives of conscience can help to save your party from group-think behaviors. There is a wealth of diversity of thought on both sides of the aisle, but one has a hard time finding it when it comes to voting time. Thank you for your courageous words. Sorry my reply is not more timely.