Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Since when does the government have to respect the Koran? I’m just asking…

Obviously, we don’t want to incite Muslims against us, and P.R. damage control is important to quell the stirring. But really, the U.S. goes to such great lengths to not give special treatment to the Bible or any other Christian symbol, so what authority holds the government to obeying a precept of Islam. Should we not serve pork and alcohol at public events?

However, stepping away from the edge of that cliff, this incident highlights a few of the major problems we have in the War on Terror.

(1) Muslims see “War on Terror” as “War on Muslims”. The majority of world Muslims identify more closely with the U.S.’s opponents than they do with the U.S. This isn’t to say that most Muslims are violent radicals, but that they tolerate violent radicals.

(2) We’re fighting with toothpicks. If we were like any other empire or nation in history, we would have roasted the Middle East like one big shish kebab and bombed them back into the early Caliphate. I’m glad we haven’t, but it’s frustrating, like fighting off a belligerant five-year-old. If you wanted, you could take the five-year-old out with a straight right to the jaw, but instead you keep shoving him back gently, even though that means you’ll have to do it again and again until he tires of his game.

So ultimately, it’s a Muslim problem. It’s their miscreants who are acting up, it’s their people who are dying (on both sides), and it’s their future at stake. Whether America desecrates Korans or not is peanuts in the real conflict of whether Muslims worldwide are going to embrace peace or conflict as their theme and goal.

Christianity comes in many shapes and sizes. Islamic faith comes in only a cople of types. There are militant groups that claim to be christian.
They hate, kill, maim, harass, prosecute and so on.
There are Islamic groups that do the same.
Both examples do it in the name of God.
The God I have a relationship with is not the same God that those groups claim to do the biding of. Does that make me better thatn they?
Most certainly not. The Islamic faith wants to take over the US. Their birth rate is something like 17 times higher than most other groups. I do not hate Islamic peoples. I have no desire to follow the Islamic faith. They are alien to my beliefs. Just before I retired, I worked with about 150 Sudanese Muslims. Several of them would talk to me openly about their befiefs. The main thread that was sewn was that they existed only to kill Jews. That is very nearly a quote. The mindset of the Muslim must change if they do not want to be looked upon as one large group of terrorists. We cannot change their mind they must do it on their own. A good place to start is to disassociate themselves from terrorist activity. That would be a great start. That would also lead to less US intervention into their affairs. Which is another great plus.

Chops,

I would disagree only in the sense that, where Christians are taught to “turn the other cheek”, Muslims are taught,”an eye for an eye”. Big difference.
Fundamentalist Muslims would rather die for their religion than live for it. That makes it everybodys problem.

Jack,

I would also say that, for the most part, most Christians are well educated, while most Muslims are not. That may seem to be a stretch, but look around at the countries where that religion has prospered, virtually all are poor, third world countries.
Christianity, on the other hand, has been part of western civilization for centuries. That is not to say that all Christian countries are rich, but at least a different value is placed on life.

Funny. Very funny.

———————————————————————
In U.S. Report, Brutal Details of 2 Afghan Inmates’ Deaths

By TIM GOLDEN
Published: May 20, 2005
Even as the young Afghan man was dying before them, his American jailers continued to torment him.

The prisoner, a slight, 22-year-old taxi driver known only as Dilawar, was hauled from his cell at the detention center in Bagram, Afghanistan, at around 2 a.m. to answer questions about a rocket attack on an American base. When he arrived in the interrogation room, an interpreter who was present said, his legs were bouncing uncontrollably in the plastic chair and his hands were numb. He had been chained by the wrists to the top of his cell for much of the previous four days.

Skip to next paragraph


Dilawar was an Afghan farmer and taxi driver who died while in custody of American troops.

THE BAGRAM FILE
First of two articles


The Bagram File

Along the Chain of Command, Confusion and Contradiction
Enlarge This Image

A sketch by Thomas V. Curtis, a former Reserve M.P. sergeant, showing how Dilawar was chained to the ceiling of his cell.
Mr. Dilawar asked for a drink of water, and one of the two interrogators, Specialist Joshua R. Claus, 21, picked up a large plastic bottle. But first he punched a hole in the bottom, the interpreter said, so as the prisoner fumbled weakly with the cap, the water poured out over his orange prison scrubs. The soldier then grabbed the bottle back and began squirting the water forcefully into Mr. Dilawar’s face.

“Come on, drink!” the interpreter said Specialist Claus had shouted, as the prisoner gagged on the spray. “Drink!”

At the interrogators’ behest, a guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend. An interrogator told Mr. Dilawar that he could see a doctor after they finished with him. When he was finally sent back to his cell, though, the guards were instructed only to chain the prisoner back to the ceiling.

“Leave him up,” one of the guards quoted Specialist Claus as saying.

Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen. It would be many months before Army investigators learned a final horrific detail: Most of the interrogators had believed Mr. Dilawar was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time.

Regardless of all this talk, Iraq is now the responsibility of the United States. The US must repair Iraq no matter how many decades it takes. As Colin Powell said, “We broke it. We own it.”. I am sure you Republicans are willing to make sacrifices to Spread Freedom in the War on Terror. Let us never forget Iraq is a Republican War. Let the Republicans bring Democracy to the Middle East.

The people who didn’t act appropriately were the rioters and their apologists who somehow thought rioting an appropriate response.

Who’s going to disagree with that?

Aldous
That obvious is not the whole story. It is only a few tidbits. It would be beneficial for all to read the whole story. Gorry details always get more attention that the rest of the story.

Aldous,

Anyone can write anything….
How true and telling is this?
Are these truly facts or fabrication?
Unfortunately, the basis for truth has been distorted on both sides of any issue. So what can an intelligent person do to help discern truth? It is so important to process as much information through our own personal grids, as tainted as they are. For myself, I tend to take in this type of information and look to validate it on several fronts from numerous sources from different viewpoints, then and only then will I accept it as holding any truth at all. It’s our only hope; otherwise we are rudderless in the ocean of opinion…
I am very interested in how you discern truth in todays society…I believe J. Anthony Matel is trying to instill a foundation of truth and integrity in his post, it’s how he lives.

J. Anthony Matel:

Good Posting! I strongly agree with your sentiments here too. I was so glad to read the parts about how you teach your children to examine themselves to see if their own actions might have provoked the response. How mature and insightful this lesson is! We should ALL take home this lesson. Good to hear there are still many like you and your family around.

Although I am not disputing anything in your message at all, I would like to point out that you said a couple times in your post that these were false allegations against the US and that we didn’t do what we are accused of. I have to say that (Of course I am speculating) I don’t believe the accusations are false. Too many prisoners complained of it BEFORE Newsweek printed it’s story. Also we have a (albeit, an un-named source)government official that told Newsweek he/she PERSONALLY witnessed at least one incident. I mean, think about all the other inappropriate means of humiliation etc. that were utilized by these interrogators. Is it really so hard to believe?

Whether true or not, I agree the response was totally inappropriate. You said it right when you said we all must be held to adult standards.

I think the kind of anger, hatred and violent responses we see today by religous groups of ALL ilks should be discouraged and not be tolerated by members of the perpetrators’ own inner groups or circles.

I must reiterate that I have been attacked (verbally, NOT physically) and called a traitor, un-patriotic, Un-American etc. for my refusal to jump on the George Bush Band wagon (I am not a democrat either). I have never seen so much anger, hatred and ire from so-called Christians (yes, I totally agree that a true-Christian would not behave as such)as I have during this past campaign. It seriously scares me at the direction America is going.

I just want you to know Anthony, whether we agree on our faith or whether or not we agree on any other issue, I sincerely respect and support your right to disagree.

Thanks for listening to a “sassyliberal”

Human Rights Watch.
International Red Cross.
Amnesty International.

Ofcourse. These are all Liberal Organizations. Feel free to disregard them.

Sassy:
“I have to say that (Of course I am speculating) I don’t believe the accusations are false. Too many prisoners complained of it BEFORE Newsweek printed it’s story. Also we have a (albeit, an un-named source)government official that told Newsweek he/she PERSONALLY witnessed at least one incident. I mean, think about all the other inappropriate means of humiliation etc. that were utilized by these interrogators. Is it really so hard to believe?”

I recently something very similar to Jack — but he simply doesn’t believe that all the other accounts of severe abuse that have come from the lips of former detainees (obviously the ones that didn’t die while being held as prisoners by the US) can be considered credible.

I agree with the rest of your post — and thought it was very well said.

I think the riots are a function of low education, economic squalor, authoritarian governments, and certain cultural trends.

It also, I believe, depends on our invasion of Iraq, both in that we’re hearing about it, and that it is occuring in the first place because of the priming of the unpopular invasion.

We may have no control over the feelings of Arabs and Muslims around the world, but we can and should control what it is they are reacting to. We should clean up our act and force them to make up stuff to get mad about.

The initial post spoke of respect for the Koran and other texts and images that represent Christianity.

It only took 4 posts to introduce prisoner abuse. Posts 1 thru 3 began to introduce the war in Iraq and, the role of religion in and surrounding that war.

We also had an anonomous contributor who was quite amused by the discussion.

Today we have news that there is a picture of Sadaam in his underwear that evidently has driven some people into a frenzy. (Probably wasn’t Hanes)

IMO whatever interrogation methods that are necessary to procure the needed information are acceptable for as long a period that we have soldiers and civilians beheaded, for as long as mid-eastern terrorists are willing to blow themselves up in public places,certainly for as long as American soldiers are hung burning from bridges and other public places and surely for as long as terrorist betray our trust and blow up mess halls full of US soldiers.

We cannot under any circumstances change the culture of an area (Mideast and others) that has existed since the beginning of time. Even by creating a “vision” of democracy, the cultural and religious beliefs and practices will continue.

We have taken drastic action before to put an end to threats on our way of life and freedom. Remember the Enola Gay and the cargo it delivered.

The Iraq war and mid-east crises will end when we stop political rhetoric, recognize the UN for the useless body that they are (in terms of resolving world crisis) and, throw diplomacy in the toilet. Brute force is needed, we need to leave a big hole where Iraq used to be. I have some compassion so let’s start with the northeast corner and see how that goes. If more convincing is needed, move to the next sector. Continue until all that is left is the oil, we could certainly use that.

Aldous,

I would encourage you to go wide and keep an open mind…I look for more information that is counter to my personal comfort zone…It is very tough to do and I get angry at times, but it’s important to look at the whole picture and not believe what I want to and ignore the rest. There’s way too much of that going on in this world already…It’s all about discernment…And we cannot discern without the facts and the facts in the world today are made up of more fiction then ever before.

Adrienne

I thought about what you wrote.

I am not quick to believe allegations; since I have seen too many times that some people lie and others actually come to believe their fantasies. However, it is possible that there is some basis to some of the allegations made. The consideration of what you wrote is one of the reasons I wrote this post.

My conclusion was that it even if true, these guys have no right to be so outraged. It is not systemic and there is an official policy against disrespecting the Koran and Muslim practices. That is very important. Then I considered the daily disrespect for Christianity and Judaism. I considered that owning a Bible is dangerous or illegal in many Muslim lands. I remembered that people are regularly beaten and killed for preaching Christianity in Islamic countries and that apostasy is officially punishable by death.

I have been thinking about a negotiation paradigm for persuasion. They are both ways to change minds and behaviors. Inexperienced negotiators give away too much too soon. They may end up thinking that they have made a good deal, but very often they have been taken to the cleaners. I think persuasion is similar. We have shown respect for Muslim sensibilities and then shown more respect. When there is a confirmed breach, the President or the Secretary of State is on the airwaves within hours with an apology and explanation. We get nothing in return except recriminations. Maybe our paradigm is wrong. I am not saying this out of a feeling of kick ass aggression, but rather to look for what might work better.

In your own life, do you like people who always tell you what you want to hear? I don’t. You have to set some limits. My belief is that the U.S. authorities cannot reasonably behave any more respectfully than they do now.

That is, we have policies in procedures in place to ensure respect. We investigate cases where there are breaches and we punish offenders. We can’t achieve perfection even in our own eyes, much less those of our detractors. In the negations, we have reached the limit of our flexibility. This is as good as it gets. We are not going to do any more, so lets stop apologizing for what we are. It may not work better than the current practice, but it is hard to see how it could turn out much worse.

sorry

in negotiation NOT negations. Writing too fast.

Jack, context is everything in the world of credibility. When American torturers are found guilty and given 6 month sentences, when we all know that if there are 50 proven cases of torture, like crime, there are at least 4 times that many that will never be proved, and then there is the context of the President and Sec’y of Defense publicly stating that the US will NOT abide the Genevea Conventions when it comes to suspected terrorists.

Context, Jack, context! Against this backdrop of facts, I find it hard to understand why Muslims with a negative predisposition to our invading their homelands would NOT take Newsweek’s story as fact, and even continue to believe it after the retraction. Context - The President set the context - and now much of the consequences for that context are his to own whether he has that kind of integrity or not.

The Newsweek retraction is an example of how the new-RNC is winning the propoganda war. Bush43 has never admitted to any mistakes and only irrational people would argue that he hasn’t made any.
Newsweek retracted the article not because it was inaccurate, but becase the law of unintended consequences was initiated: People rioted and people died becasue of the article. So, taking the high road, they disavowed the article with the hope of at least reducing the casualty count.
Were they let off the hook so future publications of incendiary material could step back when required for the greater good? Of course not, they were pilloried instead.
The lesson: Tergiversate, never apologize.

It all came about because of our consideration of allowing them to have their damn Korans there in the first place!

Jack,

What I don’t understand about this is why we (Americans), assume that other cultures would react to an insult, perceived or otherwise, as we would.
Christians see themselves as passive martyrs, who are willing to die alone to prove a point. Muslims see themselves as active martyrs, who are willing to take as many non-belivers as possible with them, to further their cause.
Why would we expect any different?

Dave,

If they had the documented facts…they would not have backed down…(please see earlier post) Since when has the “law of unintended consequences” ever stopped the press from saying what they want to say…recent history has proven it doesn’t exist. However there is a “law of intended consequences” which has succeeded and failed, based on the its percentage of Truth.

I am convinced that the truth will win out in the long run…It may be after my lifetime before it is known, but it will prevail.

Jack,

David just beat me to the punch — my reply to you would have to be exactly what he just wrote (even though he worded it better than I probably would have).

David

I am taking a much more forward position on this subject.

So we stipulate that we have done bad things in the past and that people in the Muslim world will believe almost anything about us. Stipulate also that despite various efforts over the past years, the situation is not improving enough. Given the level of scrutiny, I don’t think we will be able to achieve the progressively tightening standards. You can insert blame for the administration in this spot if you like, but no matter the cause, this is the reality. Given that, further apologies do nothing to ameliorate conditions and may make them worse. So let’s just stop it.

One thing we should have learned from Bill Clinton’s experience is the utility of hanging tough. As I always point out, I liked Clinton and I say this out of respect for the technique. When the Monika thing first came out, he dissembled. Then he denied, then he leaked information about it that set the agenda, then he apologized, but the apology was very much nuanced. The act (having sex with an intern in the Oval Office and lying about it) that would probably have cost him his presidency had he immediately owned up and apologized was denatured and became even a source of power against his opponents.

It is easy to supply your enemies with too much ammunition by being too concerned. Remember the Lebanon hostage crisis? President Reagan couldn’t handle it. He was evidently personally concerned. Whenever the bad guys would threaten, we would react. When Bush I came into office I remember the official lines. In response to questions, we would say, “Taking hostages is deplorable, next question.” Hostage taking lost its value and stopped.

I propose something similar. When we have an allegation, we say, “We are investigating the charges and deplore any wrong doing, next question”.

Another thing – I read now that people are complaining that pictures of Saddam in his underpants have come out. This is something to be laughed at, not apologized for. To start off, I saw the headline, “The Butcher of Sagdad.”

Steve,
I think you have a good idea there. I have believed in the “leave a big hole there” method for some time. We could also just tell them we flushed a couple more books and sit back and watch the animals kill each other over it.

Jack,
The only thing I think you are overlooking is that you aren’t normally successful negotiating with rabid animals. These people haven’t progressed in the last 2000 years but we somehow expect them to act in a civilized world.

JC,

Now thats what I call nuanced.

Now maybe you and Bolton could go there and straighten this whole mess out.

Rocky,
Yea, I’m a meany and Bolton isn’t a nice man either. Now please excuse me while I take my copy of the K book to the head.

Rocky:

I hope you are not suggesting that JC volunteer to serve in the Army?

Ha Ha Ha. Look what I just found!!!! What say you, Republicans?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200505170003

Media reports blamed Newsweek alone for violent Muslim demonstrations; Joint Chiefs chairman disagrees

In fact, top U.S. military officials contended that other factors led to the violence in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As Myers noted in a May 12 Department of Defense news briefing, according to Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, the commander of Combined Forces Command-Afghanistan, the violence “was not necessarily the result of the allegations about disrespect for the Quran” but was “more tied up in the political process and the reconciliation process that President [Hamid] Karzai and his Cabinet is conducting in Afghanistan.” Myers directly noted Eikenberry’s belief that the violence “was not at all tied to the article in the magazine.”

Aldous

Another reason not to start the new - less contrite - paradigm.

Every country has it’s problems.
Every country has wronged another.
I believe in freedom.
I believe in America.
I believe in freedom of speech and persuade others to use it…..but wisely!
By all means, please speak your mind and discuss the problems within this country and it’s government!
But do it here, and make it constructive criticism….involving the opposition(people we are indeed in a war with) is not constructive, it benefits NO ONE!
Newsweek in my opinion stirred a hornets nest for no reason. Even if the claims are true(I personally don’t believe they are but if..)why not investigate and report to authorities? Many attrocities happen that are not splashed all over newspapers!
A country is like a large family and when you have a scandal within it, family takes care of it(or should anyways), they don’t typically run to the neighbor and tell them their family is a piece of shit.

“I hope you are not suggesting that JC volunteer to serve in the Army?”

Aldous,

No I was just pointing out that a man with his obvious skills is sorely needed in our diplomatic corps.

Jack:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20050520/cm_thenation/32636 …So it seems the whitehouse has AGAIN been extremely quick to jump to the defense, er…I mean denial of facts they KNEW to be TRUE! Not that this is a new tactic for the US Government, but in light of the fact that Americans not only KNOW this about our government, but we have come to EXPECT it, Why are so many Americans willing to believe ANYTHING the Bush Administration says? Maybe they just desperately NEED to believe it. Hasn’t our history taught us, if nothing else, to question EVERYTHING the government tells us???

Sassyliberal

Yes, Sassy

In response to Adrienne’s comment on another part of this blog, I thought about the possibility that could happen. I considered that we have a policy against it and concluded that we have done enough by the reasonable person standard.

In light of these reconsiderations, I am not saying that it is not possible that this kind of thing could have happened. I am saying that they are contrary to policy. I am not going to pretend to be outraged (because I am not) and I don’t think that our actions or non-actions on this particular thing will have a lasting effect on the mindset of either those who would do us harm or help.

I do believe that dwelling on it and apologizing will have a deleterious effect. If I were the President, I would say, “we are investigating. If it happened it is against our stated policy. Mistakes were made; steps were taken, next question.” I won’t empower our enemies by letting them make this a bigger issue than it deserves to be.

Already served guys, too old now to go back. Too busy teaching my cat french now to go straighten out things over there, but I’ll get back to you on it. And yes, thats french with a small “f”

Americans need to be the good guys. This need is quite powerfull. Ergo, we invaded Iraq to Spread Freedom. The Tortures were a few bad apples. The fact that these bad apples seem to be everywhere is irrelevant. Americans are GOOD.

Ofcourse. Subconciously, the people know its a major foul up. That’s why recruitment is down and falling. Americans have no hesitation in going to danger but they do like to have a good reason for putting their necks on the line. It makes them feel guilty. That’s why every warsupporter has a yellow sticker on their SUVs. They may not want to fight for their beliefs but they can pretend they are helping.

Steve and JC, thank you for demonstrating that your beliefs in dropping bombs on innocent women and children and elderly and men just trying to protect their families has absolutely no redemption over the values of suicide terrorists in Iraq.

And folks wonder why liberals are so disgusted by the lack of morals of the far right.

Jack, I understand and appreciate wanting to get out in front of this. But, where are the letters, phone calls, and faxes by the those on the right to Bush and GOP representatives condemning the acts and policies that lend themselves to having to get out in front of errors and flawed policy in the first place.

Let’s face, only a backlash by Republicans is going to change the policies that cause this context to continue to exist.

Jack,
I’m very dissappointed by your attitude on this subject. You seem more worried about the appearances that have resulted from the shameful, unprecedented and extremely unwise decisions of this administration, while I am more concerned by the actual fact that despite our “official policies” regarding torture, it is clear that we have indeed been engaging in that practice —which is not only an atrocious disgrace, but also endangers the lives of every one of our soldiers who are captured in these wars we are fighting, as well as any citizen who leaves America’s borders.

Aldous

Good does not equal perfect. The measure of a good society is not that bad things never happen, but the reaction. We have good policies in place. We have adapted them. We have enforced them. I can’t think of any examples of country’s doing better in similar situations. We deplore any misconduct, but that’s it. If you are looking for perfect, you won’t find it here and you won’t find it in this world. I remain proud of my country and its troops. Nothing I have read or heard has caused me to have doubts. We will be what we have been – good, not perfect, better than most, most of the time. I will strive to improve and help my country improve, but I won’t fall into the trap of throwing away good in pursuit of the mirage of perfect.

Jack~
I understand your message! If someone muffs up overseas people want to overthrow the president because he should be all knowing of every incident- but tell that same person that maybe parents should go to jail for the actions of their child and they will scream “But, I can’t always know everything they are doing at all times!”

Jack:

Thanks, I appreciate someone open-minded and always willing to question their own position by learning what and why the other guy thinks.

I am not surprised either. It IS afterall, a war. I guess I get peeved buy some (am not necessarily referring to you as I don’t know your view here) who totally supported going to war and then act surprised when actions such as this occur, or even worse refuse to believe it at all. Actually, I am referring more to the physical torture and humiliation rather than desecration of the Quran. I mean what did America think we were sending over there, Ballerinas? NO! We sent lean, mean fighting machines! We can’t just ask our soldiers to “turn on” the state of mind needed to stay alive during a war situation and then just “turn it back off” upon request. People die! Innocent people, women and children DIE! War is Hell! I do support our VOLUNTEER Military so I tend to disagree with putting our soldiers in prison for the “ABU” actions. They are soldiers, that means they do what they are told, follow orders! They are not permitted the luxury of questioning right from wrong. They simply OBEY! I think it is our Military leaders and our govt. that smugly and publicly proclaim we don’t care about the protections offered by the Geneva convention who need held accountable.

*I NEVER supported invading Iraq and this is merely 1 reason why.

But, again my question stands: Why are some soo willing, in fact they are “arrogantly unwilling” to challenge anything this government says? Instead, they choose (again Jack I don’t mean you)to blindly believe what they are told while blindly dismissing anything to the contrary? This is another reason I think this administrsation is so scary.

My opinion.
Sassyliberal

Adrienne

I am more concerned with the appearances, because that is what we are talking about here.

Torture has become defined very broadly to include things like yelling and playing loud music. By those standards every teenager in every city in America is guilty.

The Abu Ghraib incident is a case that I know of confirmed and unmistakable abuse. Logic tells me that this was an out of control, poorly managed operation. Bad, but not policy. This I believe because I can’t think of any way you would seek information by the methods they were using and you sure wouldn’t take pictures.

As for the Guantanamo, what are we really talking about here? I met people how had experiences with the Nazis, Communists, French in Algeria or N. Vietnamese. They don’t have to make allegation of torture because they carry the evidence clearly on their bodies. Consider the difference. In Guantanamo, everybody gets clean clothes, medical care, and religious appropriate meals, Koran etc. That doesn’t look like a policy designed for abuse. Beyond that, the U.S. military believes that torture doesn’t produce reliable results and they have methods that don’t involve torture to get information. Life in Guantanamo is no doubt very unpleasant and we are working hard to break down the wills of those incarcerated. Yes that is what we are doing and yes I support that policy. I don’t want to physically abuse them, but I don’t want these guys to feel they are under no compulsion to cooperate.

These guys evidently belief that they will get to enter paradise if they die as martyrs. Of course, they are going to be disappointed. It makes sense for an interrogator to break down this belief. You can’t get information without changing the current mindset. It will be very unpleasant for the person involved, but anyone who thinks he will go to paradise by killing others should have his mindset attacked. That is something I don’t think is a mistake and I would support us doing it quick as we can.

Sassy

Nathan Bedford Forrest said and did a lot of stupid and evil things, but he did know about war and he had a simple theory. He said, “War means fightin and fightin means killin.” That is why we should avoid war when possible. But it is also why we should sometimes fight a war in one place to avoid a bigger one in another. And it is why we should fight to win.

Aldous wrote:

“Let us never forget Iraq is a Republican War. Let the Republicans bring Democracy to the Middle East.”

“The Tortures were a few bad apples. The fact that these bad apples seem to be everywhere is irrelevant. Americans are GOOD.”

This is exactly the type of hyperbole that solves nothing and perpetuates the conflict. I am not a “can’t we all just get along” kind of guy, but good lord, can we at least stay somewhere near the facts?

How this thread got so far away from it’s core is amazing. Too many people are convinced that the root of all evil is the Republican Party. Too many people are convinced the root of all evil in the Democrat Party. Hey, just for kicks, let’s actually attempt to get past that and find some basic truths.

None of these religions is inherently evil—the evil lies in the perveyors of the message and how that message is spun for their purpose. The world is so fast and loose with facts these days (oh yeah, the cons will say it’s the liberal press and the libs will say it’s GWs fault) that the average person will easily become either brainwashed or fed up.

I’m a believer in truth, however painful, so long as it is the truth. Right now, neither set of party leaders has much interest in truth, nor does the press (liberal or conservative). It seems these days, for every study or article you can find that says white is white, you can find an equally compelling article that white is black.

Yeah, I’m about 6 stories up on my soap box, but everyone needs to explode occassionally. And the two quotes above lit my fuse.

Clayton,

The initial pentagon replies and other articles in the international press corroborate that desecration of the Quran (details, e.g. in the toilet, are irrelevant) was used as part of interrogation techniques.

I’m sure there are those who will say “Ah! foreign press and their liberal main-stream-media anti-american agenda.” Whatever, I haven’t heard anything to convince me out of my post. Of course, I didn’t bother to initially include the Rather-factor experience in their decision process.

Read Jeff Jacoby’s column in the Boston Globe the other day about the Savages and the Koran. It’s a great piece. These savages didn’t riot because of the Newsweek story, they just used it as an excuse to launch another orgy of islamofascist violence. As if they needed an excuse to behave like the third world 14th century beasts that they are and not accept the fact that the world passed them by about 600 years ago. Following in the path of the NY Times (Jayson Blair and Maureen Dowd/Paul Krugman) and CBS (Dan Rather) this Newsweek story was another pathetic attempt by the elite media to slander our administration (read “Arrogance” by Bernard Goldberg for more).
But even if the story was true, how is that an excuse to kill people? No Jews, Christians or Buddhists are launching terror wars when their religion is abused, eg. Palestinian terrorists hole themselves up in Bethlehem’s Church of the Nativity two years ago and plunder the place while keeping the priests hostage and fire at Israeli soldiers from a church!

And by the way, do you think these terrorists all brought their personal Korans with them to jail? No, the US military out of “respect” for their religion, provided them with a copy of the Koran.

We need to stop pandering to these fanatics and saying that Islam is a religion of peace. It’s not. Nor was Communism a form of peaceful government that protects liberties and provides a righteous utopian home for its constituents. It’s absolutism at its worst. It’s very black and white. We’re right and they’re wrong.
You’re either with us or against us, and there’s no way to convert or negotiate with these animals to get them to see the light. Just like there was no way to negotiate with the Iranians who took our embassy hostage. The only way to “negotiate” with them is on their terms — with guns and blood. Our guns and their blood.

Shalom.

Jack:
“The Abu Ghraib incident is a case that I know of confirmed and unmistakable abuse.”

Here is one from Afghanistan:
An excerpt from a USA Today article Today I read earlier this morning:

A U.S. Army investigation has uncovered grisly details of the 2002 deaths of two Afghan men in American custody, The New York Times reported Friday, with a confidential report quoting witnesses as saying both men were repeatedly beaten before their deaths six days apart. The Times reported it obtained a copy of a 2,000-page confidential report of the Army’s investigation into the deaths, which took place at a detention center in Bagram, Afghanistan in December 2002. The Times reported it obtained the report “from a person involved in the investigation who was critical of the methods used at Bagram and the military’s response to the deaths.” According to the report, one of the two men � known to the Army only as Dilawar � died after being chained by his wrists to the ceiling of his cell for four days. During that time, he was interrogated repeatedly, and his legs were beaten so badly that a coroner later said they “had basically been pulpified,” the Times reported. Dilawar was a taxi driver and may have been arrested simply because he drove past an American military outpost with three pasengers shortly after it had been attacked, according to the report. The other three eventually were flown to the American detainee facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where they were held for more than a year before being released without being charged, the Times reported. The second victim, known to the Army as Habibullah, was believed by some American officials to be the brother of a former Taliban commander. He also was shackled by the wrists from the ceiling of his cell, the Times reported, and was beaten by guards and interrogators repeatedly over several days in early December 2002. He, like Dilawar, was found dead in his cell, still shackled. An autopsy reported there were numerous deep bruises on his body, including one on his left calf that appeared to have been left by the sole of a boot. His cause of death was listed as a clot that blocked the flow of blood to his lungs, and it was possibly caused by leg injuries, the Times reported. Seven soldiers have been charged so far in the death of Dilawar and investigators have recommended that up to 27 face charges, the Times reported; as many as 15 of those have also been linked to Habibullah’s death. The military report cited by the Times goes into explicit detail about the last hours of both men, indicating they were subject to repeated beatings and humiliation in their last days. Some of the prison’s interrogators were sent to Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison in July 2003, where they took charge of interrogations that included some of the now-widely-documented incidents of abuse there. The Army initially said both men in Afghanistan had died of natural causes, even though military coroners ruled the deaths homicides. Army officials also claimed the deaths were isolated incidents, but the investigation showed regular abuse of prisoners at the facility, the Times reported.

One of the biggest problems regarding appearances seems to be the fact that the military has been LYING — and since these things keep coming out regardless of our “official position”, it is transforming America into lying monsters in the eyes of the world. People who torture and sometimes end up killing people while in our custody.
As you said, torture isn’t an effective tool for gathering reliable results, but soldiers are still doing it anyway. So the question becomes: If it isn’t “official policy” and it isn’t effective, who the hell is minding the store so poorly and in so many places?
Or is the truth really that allowing prisoners to be tortured is “secret policy” that is obviously becoming no secret at all?

Damn it, no more excuses!
This is not acceptable behavior for America’s military to be engaging in!

The part of the article to notice is “seven soldiers have been charged so far …and investigators have recommended that up to 27 face charges” No excuses. I deplore such acts and they are illegal under our laws.

That is exactly my point. I am finished apologizing for these things. In the time it took me to write this sentence, hundreds of prisoners were abused in jails all over the Muslim world. The difference is that none of them will be investigated and none of the perpetrators will face charges.

Jack, you are still missing the point. Those abusers did not act without sanction from above. If we are to improve our image and set ameliorate the damage done, the top honcho has to express regret, and most important, accept responsibility for it ever occuring in the first place as a direct result of his announcement that the USA would not abide the Geneva Conventions with regard to suspected terrorists.

The world knows Bush and Rumsfeld are responsible, and convicting every person in the miiltary will not alter a thing. The military is the scapegoat (which is is really broiling my ass at the moment). The President and Rumsfeld taking responsibility and paying a price would go some distance in letting the world know that the policy was a mistake and will not be repeated. That is what the world wants to know, including his critics here at home.

I’m just a country boy, so perhaps some on the left can cut me some slack in trying to understand this issue.

Lets see.. most of the defence for terriosts/radical muslimes seems to come from the left..treat them nice, treat them fair, try to understand them.

Now.. If you look at the ajenda/beliefs of those radicals…gays?..cut off their head, women voteing?..cut off their head, deny a man to marry an 8yr. old?…cut off their head, eat a porkchop…cut off their head,believe in anything but the koran…cut of their head, ect. ect., you get the idea.

If this isn’t just political BS, what the hell is it?
Another group to add to the Dem.’s big tent?

Unless someone on the left can explain this support away, I say great! It can’t work out any worse that some other groups in your tent.

PS, If the President would take responsibility for the torture as a result of his publicly announced policy of not abiding the Geneva Convention, the President would have room to pardon the military being convicted for following orders. If he doesn’t take responsibility, those soldiers are going to pay the price Bush should be paying.

This President’s respect (or lack of) for the military is hanging on this issue. If he lets our soldiers go to prison for a policy he inititated, he is the biggest coward the Oval Office has ever seen as occupant.

David

Even if the President were responsible, it would serve no useful purpose for him to apologize unless he also resigned. Then, you would have Dick Cheney. Then what? I don’t think there is any way we could arrive at anyone the President’s opponents would find acceptable. An apology would just strengthen our enemies and destroy this U.S. government. Maybe we can think about it after Osama apologizes for the Trade Center and his follower stop planning to murder us.

The Geneva Convention doesn’t apply to these guys because they are not fighting for a state that signed the convention and in fact not fighting for a state at all. As it is, the fact that they are fighting out of uniform behind the lines would makes them liable to be shot as spies or saboteurs if we actually worked by those rules. Whether you support the Bush policy or not, this situation presents a legal problem that really cannot be easily addressed.

An Atheist Liberal Point of view

I am intrigued by many of these entries. Most of them come from the heart, so I will try to not offend people. Believe me, it is not my intent.

I listen to Conservative radio and read many Republican blogs and websites. The thing that strikes me most about this belief and government system is the hypocrisy. Here is an example I noticed not too long ago…

For months last summer I was told to “Go see The Passion of the Christ!”, “It will change your life!” I did not take much credence in the latter statement, but did decide to see the movie anyway. It was excellent. No actually better than excellent. The fact that it was not up for best picture is a travesty (Michael Moore’s film should have been up for best documentary as well, but that is for another blog another time). This movie is the “Schindler’s List” of 2000. The “Saving Private Ryan” of today. But that is where my critique ends and my questions begin. Did the Christians miss the part of Christ bloodied and beaten exclaiming “Love thy neighbor?” I only ask because the people who raved about how proud they were of the movie and their religion were the same people who said that “Falujah should have been carpet bombed!” Did these people miss the message of their religion? Christ does everything he can to spread peace and prosperity, but his beliefs have now been bastardized into greed (just look at the gaudy gold chairs and furniture the religious nuts on TV use and you will understand my point) and power. Sorry, but violence is NOT part of Christ’s message. If you think that it is, you have been brainwashed or are just not intelligent enough to figure out Christ’s teachings. American Christianity has become a vessel of hated toward gays and a stance against abortion. You may argue that this is part of your religion. I will accept that. But is that what ALL of your religion is about? If so, I am sorry. If not, you might want to start focusing on other things. Not doing so will make you a zealot fanatic and will give you a one-way ticket to Hell. Remember, when this stuff started there was no America. It began and flourished in the region we are destroying

Von, it’s always easier said than done. It’s easy to remember the basic teachings of Christ but actually applying/integrating them in your life is quite another matter, and while it is the most important part of religion it is also the part so many people fail at so miserably.

David,

The bombs will certainly get some less involved folks but, those “innocent” children and women that are so disregarded by those fighting against us that they are hooked up with bombs and sent to blow up OUR people will be a bonus. Also, it is beyond question that even the unborn at this point in those regions will grow up with the same warped mentality as those we are fighting against now and, will be tommorrows terrorist.

The hole in the ground position that I favor is a proven deterrent to future uprisings against us and possibly our interests.

They are now painting American flags on the ground at the entrances to their places of worship. This would demonstrate a high level of respect for what we believe in. How many American flags are burned each day in the mid-east. How much of this kind of behavior are you willing to tolerate before you react with a force unequalled in this century. These people have taken a vow to hate and destroy everything American.

A quick hole in the ground would be merciful, which is good for those of you who are anti agressive interrogation.

David R. Remer:

“PS, If the President would take responsibility for the torture as a result of his publicly announced policy of not abiding the Geneva Convention, the President would have room to pardon the military being convicted for following orders.”

To say that the President’s clarifying the status of POWs vs criminals is tantamount to giving direct orders for torture is not within the realm of linear thought. Do you really believe the president gave orders to have the detainees tortured? If that is what you believe, while I don’t agree, I can at least understand your fury. But to attempt the nexus of what he did actually say to what you imply does not follow.

Incidentally, I don’t believe alot of the crap said or reported about Bill Clinton either, so don’t try that partisan garbage with me either. I believe in the office of the president, and I don’t believe that a man could be elected who is as evil-to-the-core as either extreme partisan may assert. I am not a huge believer in GW, but I don’t believe, not for a second, that he would advocate and order torture. At the very least, it is not what he said.

Von
The reason Jesus was beaten and crucified was so that he took upon himself the total sins of the world. When that was accomplished, then I in my sinful state could repent and ask for forgiveness for my errors. Repenting means to be sorry enough to not desire to do the particular sin again. The forgiveness covers the repenting heart. It is up to the individual to accept the gift that Jesus gave us. When that occurs a life is transformed. I speak from experience. The things I once did mostly left me overnight. It is up to me to grow as a believer in the Gospel of Jesus Christ to improve. When that transformation occurs, hate leaves, desire to do harm to others goes away, and one desires to live in harmony and peace. Sometimes there is a need to go to battle to destroy an enemy that lives a life of hatred of groups of people. And when that enemy threatens to do harm to ones homeland, one must seek the wisdom of God and move forward.

David,
“Even the unborn at this point in those regions will grow up with the same warped mentality as those we are fighting against now and, will be tommorrows terrorist.”

Really? Then why don’t we just nuke the whole region instead of letting our men and women die every day for it? If you truly believe what you say, then maybe you should look in the mirror and see what a “terrorist” looks like. Just because you happened to be born or have immigrated to this country does not give you the right to spread your hatred to rest of the world. And we wonder why our country is lacking respect in the world? Since the subject of these posts are on religon, I wonder what denomination you represent. I always thought the Arayan Nation was a club not a church.

Tom,

Thank you for your heartfelt and intelligent response.

My only question is to this statement…

“Sometimes there is a need to go to battle to destroy an enemy that lives a life of hatred of groups of people. And when that enemy threatens to do harm to ones homeland, one must seek the wisdom of God and move forward.”

Iraq has never harmed our homeland. I doubt God believes in a pro-active assualt on countries we think may hurt us in the future. We as Americans really want to believe that God favors us over the rest of the world. That is doubtful with our past. But like you say, our mission is to get better. I just disagree that getting better means killing people. Even if it is in the name of democracy.

Beagle,

I will try to explain this for you…

We have soldiers dying right now because they think this region can changed. They don’t believe that we are making room in our “Democratic Tent”, instead, they belive that we are making a difference. If you really believe that everything they do in Iraq causes a “Beheading”, maybe you really are a dumb country boy.

Von
When David slew Goliath he did it in the name of the Lord in Heaven.
When Lots wife turned and looked at the place where they had come from, Soddom, God turned her into a pillar of salt. The problem with doing things in the name of God in Heaven is that man gets in the way and wants to help God, when God wants to help man. It really does come down to how sovereign are we in Gods eyes. It does become quite convoluted and polluted at some point.

Von,

Very ineresting post, you may be right in calling me “dumb”, I don’t understand what your point was.( if anyone else does..feel free to jump in).

Steve said: “The hole in the ground position that I favor is a proven deterrent to future uprisings against us and possibly our interests.”

Steve, by that logic, we should just nuke the entire rest of the world. I mean, why take a chance? As long as people live outside our government, they will breed those who oppose things we do. By your logic we should exercise an American “Final Solution”.

David, excellent points on your last two posts.
Von, nice post on the religious viewpoint, but in your following post that wasn’t David you were quoting from, it was actually someone named steve.

Beagle:
“Lets see.. most of the defence for terriosts/radical muslimes seems to come from the left..treat them nice, treat them fair, try to understand them.”

Look Beagle, America is a nation where we live by the rule of law. We were also instrumental in enacting the international laws of the Geneva Convention that proclaimed that torture is not something civilized people do, and that such an atrocious and immoral act only endangers the lives of our own soldiers when they are captured and held.
We signed on to that idea — until Bush publically announced that no longer applies in these wars we are fighting in Muslim countries — and this appears to have lead directly to an uncivilized breakdown in what our soldiers feel they can and should do with people who are being held in US-controlled military prisons. In fact, to many of us, it appears as though it may well be a secret policy in direct opposition to our official policy.
Nobody here has said we should not interrogate suspected terrorists, or people who aid and abet terrorists, but civilized people are against holding innocent people in jail without charge, and they completely against torture.
A gang of our soldiers beating a mans legs until PULPIFIED while he is CHAINED TO THE CEILING is not interrogation, it is TORTURE — the act of morally bankrupt, completely unfeeling, bloody insane, MONSTERS.
It is totally uncivilized and is not justifiable in any way, shape or form.
Are we, because of terrorism, to become like the terrorists — people without a shred of morals or conscience?

It is extremely disturbing to me that this seems to be exactly what so many of you on the right are advocating.

Jack said: “Even if the President were responsible, it would serve no useful purpose for him to apologize unless he also resigned.”

I don’t believe that is true. His resignation on this issue would harm our international relations even more. Taking responsibility by acceeding that his remarks led to a misunderstanding of his policy which in turn led to torture and abuse, would be a political position which could be defended. He erred in not anticipating the consequences and addressing those before they occured. Such a position would not require resignation, and would leave the door open to pardon our troops being tried and those who will yet come to trial as a consequence of his policy statement.

This is not rocket science, Jack. This is politics. And Bush has some of the best political minds in the world around him. If I can see this politically defensible position which he could take, I am absolutely convinced he is aware of it too. And not taking it makes him the biggest coward ever to occupy the Oval Office in my opinion.

He either stands by our troops on this issue and saves their ass, or he cowardly lets them suffer for his errant policy statement.

The better part of a day has been spent arguing the two socially “taboo” issues of politics and religion. I say “taboo” only from the standpoint that these are the two points that arguably have no hope for resolution between the partisan debaters.

Jack, we Viet Nam era vets got hung out to dry by our government and society who let politics be a higher priority than our limbs, lives, and dignity as soldiers.

I have that same feeling this is what is occuring again at the hands of the Bush administration who is going to let our troops suffer the consequences of his own policy statements. Rumsfeld included.

“Lets see.. most of the defence for terriosts/radical muslimes seems to come from the left..treat them nice, treat them fair, try to understand them.”

Beagle,

In deference to Adrienne I would like to add to her statement to you.

Isn’t this what a “Christian” people are supposed to do?
Wasn’t the “they did it first” attitude supposed to end when we left grade school?
Are we going to impose our culture, and our form of government on the whole world, or just those that we belive are against us?
Let me, for a minute, concede that beheading folks is barbaric.
What exactly is your point? That we are more civilized than they are?
Do a civilized people pre-emptively attack a soverign nation, barbaric or not, because they thumbed their nose at our demands?
Do a civilized people ignore a treaty signed by pretty much by the whole world, including America, because of a technicality?
Please, tell me, who are the barbarians here?

Von, calling folks here at WB dumb will cause you to lose your posting privileges here. Critique the Message, Not the Messengers. No reply is necessary or warranted.

Chi Chi, the argument I make could not be clearer nor could the connection. You have every right to refuse to see it. We are afterall, still free to choose what we admit into our brains and what not to, thankfully.

Rocky,

I don’t think I posted anything close to what you’re stating, even if it feeds off adrelines post.

Strawmen are easy to knock down..set one up, knock it down.
I’ll defend/explain my opinions about any political issue, Its just tough when other things get added to it.

David R. Remer:

“Chi Chi, the argument I make could not be clearer nor could the connection. You have every right to refuse to see it. We are afterall, still free to choose what we admit into our brains and what not to, thankfully.”

Clear to you, who have a clear bias and are not afraid to make statements without fact. I am insulted by your comments, and so should all those who seek truth based in fact, and try to resolve issues based on those facts. Innuendo, insinuation and spin do not contribute to a debate’s essence, only to drama and bravado.

If the connection is so clear, show me where he ordered torture. I realize you may find this side of the arguement sophmoric, but I really want to see it. I am not above admitting I’m wrong or over the top, but I only do it in the face of facts.

Again, I made the same demands of cons and neocons when addressing their hot-button issues such as abortion, church/state separation, state’s rights, etc. I’m not defending Bush—I hope I’m defending something a little bigger. I’m defending the collective intellect of America—people who just want the truth without the hyperbole of bitter partisanship or people with an axe to grind.

Tom,

I apologize if you are Jewish. I assume you are because you are quoting the Old Testement. I was specifically speaking about Christianity.

“I don’t think I posted anything close to what you’re stating, even if it feeds off adrelines post.”

“Strawmen are easy to knock down..set one up, knock it down.”

Beagle,

Let me think,
“Now.. If you look at the ajenda/beliefs of those radicals…gays?..cut off their head, women voteing?..cut off their head, deny a man to marry an 8yr. old?…cut off their head, eat a porkchop…cut off their head,believe in anything but the koran…cut of their head, ect. ect., you get the idea.”
“Lets see.. most of the defence for terriosts/radical muslimes seems to come from the left..treat them nice, treat them fair, try to understand them.”
“Another group to add to the Dem.’s big tent?

Unless someone on the left can explain this support away, I say great! It can’t work out any worse that some other groups in your tent.”

You do remember those words, right?

Straw man?
Whatever.

David,
On the status of the Gitmo detainess, I would argue that many of them should not be given POW status. If Al Queda members want to deliberatly target civillians, refuse to wear military uniforms, and do themselves not recognize the Hague convention nor the Geneva convention, then they are not entitled to such status. You may aruge the morality of that, but also realize that granting them that status will only help them in their cause.
Secondly, there should be no moral comparison or relativism here. Even if US military staff or a US government civillian did tear up a Koran (something that is alleged at best), how does that justify the reaction? Nor why should I respect their complaints when many Islamic countries fail to respect any other religion? Consider the case of our ally, Saudi Arabia. Bibles are routinely destroyed in that country and coverting a muslim to Christianity is punishable by death. Futhermore, how dare any of the many Islamic countries, like Saudia Arabia and Pakistan, dare complain about the treatment of the Gitmo captives? A quick glance of the Amnesty International or on various State Department documents will illustrate the fate of many people who are unfortunate to be in their prisoners.
I compare the situation in our relations with many of these countries to the early Cold War. George Kennan’s(sp?) thesis was dead on, in that the poor relations between the US and the Soviet Union was not the fault of the US, but rather a by product of the goverment in the USSR. I would state that this condition holds true today in our relations with many muslims. If the US opened up the gates of Gitmo and sentenced those guilty of ‘torture’ to death, would it have any substantive impact on our relations? I would argue that it would not, since our very way of life is repugnant to fundamental Islam. You can not have democray, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, trial by jury, rights to both men and women, and also be a believer in fundamental Islam (especialy the Wahhabis sect sponsered by the Saudi Royal family..).
Given that compromise is impossible, our hope to solve this dilema is to modernize the middle east. I honestly believe that human nature is on our side, and not the extremists. That is most people, (especially educated people) want to have the right to vote and enjoy basic human rights. I offer as proof what happened in Europe many years ago,the voting in Iraq and the recent protests in Lebanon. If Iraq becomes a republic, how long do you think the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria, Iran, and Eygypt can exist in their present form?
Call me an optimist, but I believe we will succeed in Iraq..and it will change the world for the better..much better.

David,

My apologies. I thought it was your name under the post. My response was intended for Steve.

Von
I am not Jewish. Neither was I offended at your conclusion. I have friends, people who are on a first name basis with me, in 18 countries around the world. They represent Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Catholic, Buddhist, Atheist, Humanist, Agnostic maybe some I left out. These are people who live in those countries or just recently moved here. I respect them all because the same God that created me, created them. I will make this the last statement on this subject here because I have strayed from the original message. If the Watchblog Mgr has a way of giving you and you only my e-mail address, He will see this and will acknowledge it if it is ethically right to do so.

Rocky,

Yes ,I remember the words and stand behind that statement.

Take it ALL in context, dont read anything into it that wasn’t stated, and debate the parts I’m wrong on.

Do you wish for me to boil it down for you?

The radical nutballs that the Dem. party, (seems) to be defending, HATES everything about you and the issues/platform that the Dem.’s hold dear.
If it isn’t political BS, sticking-up for them, What is it ?

Tom,

Excellent post.

It is nice to see elegance in religion. I respect you because you respect others.

“I respect them all because the same God that created me, created them. “

I DARE ANYONE TO GIVE A BETTER QUOTE!

No need for an email Tom, your quote will do just fine.

Beagle,

I thought all of the Iraqies were showering us with roses, finacing the war with their oil, and voting to obtain a democracy.

At least that is what the leaders of your party have been telling us.

A lot of people wrote in while I was commuting from work.

Re Geneva Convention and POWs. There is a legitimate disagreement about whether you can grant the Taliban and al Qaida POW status. Neither group were signatories and al Qaida doesn?t represent a state at all. It would be a lot like granting gang members POW status. This status is too good for them. And if they were fighting a war, they also would be bound by the conventions, which they have clearly violated on too many occasions to count. Found behind lines, without uniforms, they would be spies and saboteurs liable to execution.

Beyond that, as POWs they could be held for the duration of the war. In other words, they could be imprisoned until the war on terror is over. They might well die of old age.

Re torture ? it is illegal under U.S. procedures and laws. We investigate instances of torture and punish violators.

The idea that Bush authorized in some secret way is not supportable. For one thing, he can’t. Bush is not sovereign. He cannot authorize what is against U.S. law. Soldiers are under no obligation to obey unlawful orders. In fact, they are prohibited from doing so.

The problem with torture is defining it. I read today in Atlantic Magazine re spanking that ?Corporal punishment of children?regardless of how “moderate,” and no matter by whom dispensed?is considered a violation of international human-rights law. The practice violates at least six human-rights treaties … the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment …?

If this definition is allowed to pass, almost every parent in the U.S. is a serial torturer. I don?t accept this foolishness.

So let?s agree. Causing serious sustained pain or bodily injury is torture. This we should never do. Making people uncomfortable, bored etc is not. This we should be able to do. Making fun of someone?s beliefs is in bad taste, but not torture.

And to the original post - the rioters are always bad and their behavior should be deplored.

Jack,
Just because you don’t have to treat them like POWs doesn’t mean you shouldn’t.

Beagle,
I’ll get back to you later.

Beagle,
The point is that if we lower our standards of behavior in wartime for the sole reason that “they did it first”, then we can’t claim to be morally superior. How can we claim the moral high ground if we’re right down there in the dirt with the extremists? How can we tell the rest of the world that we expect them to live up to their contractual obligations when we don’t do it ourselves? How can we complain about terrorists torturing people when we do it ourselves?

It’s not a question of defending them. There is probably not one person in this blog who opposes a war on Al Qaeda.

Re: the riots and uproar about supposed flushed Qur’an
News stories don’t cause riots.
Flushed Qur’ans don’t cause riots.
Religions don’t persecute people.
Religions don’t prosilitize.
Lies don’t make people believe them.
Lies don’t create themselves.
Guns don’t commit crimes or kill people.
People do !

So, you see. The real problem is people.
Not all of them. Just some of them, that
want to believe bad (untrue) things about others,
want to be intolerant of others’ religions,
want to control others,
want to hate,
want to spread hate and perpetuate it, and teach it to their children,
want to hate based on race, gender, religion, wealth, and other things that should not matter, and
want to find a twisted way to justify it all.

You really have to wonder why?
Is it working?

On the subject of torture:
Anyone participating in torture of any person is breaking the law (not just U.S. law, but the law of most nations and the U.N.). Those guilty of violating the law should be punished. But, a few bad apples breaking the law, does not prove that it was ordered or condoned. And a few bad apples don’t make a whole nation bad.

Maintaining humanitarian standards for those we take prisoner is central to the good name of the United States, and saftey of our people, if captured.

Torture, as defined by treaty, is the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering (physical or mental) on a person to obtain information or confession.

But, shooting an enemy on the battlefield in order to stop their advance is legitimate.

On June 26th 2003, President Bush declared that “the United States is committed to the world-wide elimination of torture” and called for all governments to prohibit “all acts of torture” and “prevent other cruel and unusual punishment.”
_______________________
NewsMax.com Wires
Friday, Feb. 8, 2002
WASHINGTON – The United States will recognize captured Afghan and Taliban detainees under the Geneva Convention governing the treatment of prisoners of war, but that distinction will not apply to al-Qaeda members, the White House said Thursday.
“Consistent with American values and principles of the Geneva Convention, America has treated and will continue to treat all Taliban and al-Qaeda detainees in Guantanamo Bay humanely and consistent with the principles of the Geneva Convention,” White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said.

“They will continue to receive three meals a day, excellent medical care, clothing, shelter, showers and the opportunity to worship.”

President Bush has been opposed to giving any of the detainees prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Convention. Instead, the Department of Defense designated the detainees as “unlawful combatants.” Senior Bush administration officials maintained that the fighters represented a terrorist organization, not a government, thereby removing their protections and rights under the Convention.
_______________________

None of that means that torturing prisoners is OK or condoned.

There is a legitimate disagreement about whether you can grant the Taliban and al Qaida POW status… It would be a lot like granting gang members POW status.

Do you mean gang members in the US who have rights as US citizens under US law? That’s not a very good analogy for your side. Classifying gang members as POWs would actually strip them of their rights.

Re torture - it is illegal under U.S. procedures and laws… The idea that Bush authorized in some secret way is not supportable.

Except that we have the President authorizing physical abuse, described in the Gonzales memo as anything short of “equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.”

And they would have got away with it, if it hadn’t been for the press publishing the leaked Abu Ghraib photos.

I gotta agree with David about the context here. After seeing the photos of inmates being tortured and humiliated at Abu Ghraib by soldiers of the US Army, reports of the same people stuffing the Koran down the crapper sound pretty plausible.

Is that an excuse for violent rioting? No more than the piss Christ, I guess.

I think the army reports, such as they are, describe inmates themselves trying to stuff pages of the Koran down the toilet as protest. It shows the respect some of these guys have for the Koran.

Re the memo – torture does have to be defined. Interrogation will be uncomfortable but discomfort does not equal torture.

You can’t grant POW status to non-POWs. It is not something to be given away. It is a specific status that brings with it rights AND responsibilities. The terrorists would be unwilling to abide by the rules. For example, our troops had legitimate fears that their prisoners would try to murder them in a suicide murder. We are not talking Hogan’s Heroes.

We can’t lump everything together. Abu Ghraib was an example of illegal behavior that was investigated and punished. The people involved were not following any policy. If there had been such a secret policy in place, the soldiers involved still would have had a duty not to carry it out. Soldiers are required to obey all lawful orders only.

First: We must admit the truth- the people rioting out there only have themselves to blame for the death and destruction they’ve caused. If it wasn’t this provocation, it would have been something else.

Newsweek should have been more careful about the source- that’s all. The rioting is not their fault, any more than it is the administration’s fault for it’s tolerance of interrogation methods that make the “Quran in the toilet” story so hard to knock down, despite a lack of hard evidence.

In fact, for the Quran dumping story to be all that inflammatory, there had to be that line crossed at some point. There had to be some reason that this couldn’t be shrugged off.

There is strength in integrity and discipline that this administration and it’s right-wing followers sometimes seem to miss. Just because you can do whatever you want doesn’t mean you should. Just because there is this great evil out there, doesn’t mean you should treat your own refusal to take up the battle on their moral ground as a weakness.

We cannot match the savagery of the tyrants and the terrorists of the world without becoming an evil ourselves So why try? Let’s defeat them by being smarter, more courageous, braver in our defense of the common values of the world. Let’s make ourselves the heroes of that part of that world instead of the villains.

Chi Chi asked: “If the connection is so clear, show me where he ordered torture.”

Lovely way you posed the question. Sorry, I ain’t biting. What the President did do is publicly state we would not be bound by the Geneva Conventions in our handling of suspected terrorists.

Given that this was not clear to you the first time, let me spell this out. The Geneva Convention was a set of behaviors which the US helped sponsor and signed on to to prevent the torture and inhumane abuse of prisoners in time of war.

Bush said we won’t abide by those rules. Now folks can play games all day long as to whether we are at war or not, and whether those we are battling in Afghanistan and Iraq are combatants in a time of war or not.

But, the fact is, many of those detained and abused by the standards set out in the Geneva Convention, had not been tried, had not been apprehended in the act of terrorism. Rather they were arrested and detained as suspects. And they were tortured.

Bush’s public announcement that we would not be bound by the Geneva Convention we helped write for the protection of our own combatants, lifted the constraints by our military set out in that Geneva Convention. In other words, Bush lifted the international ban on our military’s use of torture. It just couldn’t be any plainer, Chi Chi.

But, like I said, we are all free to decide what we permit and shut out of our brains. With an education in psychology, I understand the need of folks to resolve cognitive dissonance with rationalization and denial.

Rocky:
“In deference to Adrienne I would like to add to her statement to you.” Etc, etc…

Deference… That’s got be one of the most wonderful words in the English language. Thanks Rocky!
You’re obviously a fine man, and I’m very glad you added those points to my post — because if I’d thought of them at that moment, I might have included them myself.

“Straw man?
Whatever.”

Seems to me, they always come out with “strawman” whenever we make a thatch out of the moral foundations of their arguments. ;^)

“Just because you don’t have to treat them like POWs doesn’t mean you shouldn’t.”

Yes, I agree 100%. Especially when when we’re not sure if they’re even GUILTY of anything.

Beagle:
“adrelines post.”

:^D Hey, that’s a whole new mangling of my nom de plume! Just yesterday, someone pronounced my name (phonetically) as “Ah-dear-rye-ann”.
I assume this would be pronounced: “Add-rell-leen”?
O’ Pioneer! I believe that’s rather Prairie-esque!

Look, whether or not Bush said word-for-word that American Soldiers had been ordered to torture etc. POWs, is not the point. I have no article to site here, (maybe someone else does) but I, myself heard Bush say on National TV that the US has no obligation to abide by the Geneva Convention. You know, my liberal religious mother always taught me that: “How could I point at another and say “shame shame” for their actions but still consider myself as good as, or better than they are if I am behaving exactly like them and claiming that my actions are justified?”
The US is a nation of laws and even if we disagree with specific aspects of it (like abortion, death penalty, gay marriage, etc.) we still tend to support our legal system. (yes, with all it’s faults) Ours is a system of JUSTICE! This war in Iraq is not justice. It is VENGEANCE disguised as justice!! Vengeance against an invisible enemy that struck on 9-11 and instilled such fear among us that we allow radical conservatives to use as a means to serve their agendas instead of helping us to heal.

Tom,

…as a believer in the Gospel of Jesus Christ… When that transformation occurs, hate leaves, desire to do harm to others goes away, and one desires to live in harmony and peace. Sometimes there is a need to go to battle to destroy an enemy that lives a life of hatred of groups of people. And when that enemy threatens to do harm to ones homeland, one must seek the wisdom of God and move forward.

Hmmm, Let’s see, would you say that Liberals, Gays, Non-Christians, Women seeking abortions, Immigrants (legal AND illegal) and those living in poverty count as some of the “groups” that our enemies live to hate” That specific “enemy” IS threatening my homeland. According to you, there is a need for me to “go to battle to destroy” this enemy. My own family, friends, neighbors and countrymen? No. I want to respect their differences and them to respect mine. If we truly love our neighbor as we have been charged, we will seek to share our beliefs, and be shared with as well.

Thucydides:

If Al Queda members want to deliberatly target civillians, refuse to wear military uniforms, and do themselves not recognize the Hague convention nor the Geneva convention, then they are not entitled to such status.

why should I respect their complaints when many Islamic countries fail to respect any other religion?

Why? Well, besides what I wrote above, we are the United States of America. We embrace with our constitution this very notion. We respect each other’s right to their beliefs and even to complain. That’s why.

Call me an optimist, but I believe we will succeed in Iraq..and it will change the world for the better..much better.

The only way to change the world for the better is to consertedly strive to learn about, respect and embrace diversity.

Rocky,

Let me think, “Now.. If you look at the ajenda/beliefs of those radicals…gays?..cut off their head, women voteing?..cut off their head, deny a man to marry an 8yr. old?…cut off their head, eat a porkchop…cut off their head,believe in anything but the koran…cut of their head, ect. ect., you get the idea.” “Lets see.. most of the defence for terriosts/radical muslimes seems to come from the left..treat them nice, treat them fair, try to understand them.” “Another group to add to the Dem.’s big tent?

Rocky, Rocky, Rocky,
I am not a democrat per se. But, dear, dear Rocky, treat them fair, try to understand them,” (…oh and let’s not forget tolerate!) sure, I am one of “those.”
Seems you tend to lean more toward those

“ememies that live a life of hatred of groups of people

WHY CAN’T WE JUST ALL GET ALONG??????

sassyliberal

Steve,
Welcome to the JC and Steve are buttheads club. As usual, the most vocal people here are appalled at the treatment of terrorists but few seem to mention the beheadings that are so routinely committed.
There are a minority of people/animals in Iraq who are part of the terrorist activities. Everyone else is a bystander not really involved. NOOOObody knows who these people/animals are that are doing the damage,that is, killing the local population, babies, women, and the old men who were mentioned earlier.
Do people really believe we can negotiate with these animals? Where the hell is the indignation over the acts of the terrorists AND THE POPULATION WHO SUPPORT THEM? These are barbaric people who haven’t progressed in doing anything in the last 2000 years except learning how to blow themselves and other people apart. They haven’t even progressed to the point of respecting human life and that INCLUDES their own children. They mold their children from birth to hate and want to kill anyone who dare disagree with what they have been told to think!
These people are barbaric animals who have but one mission in life, and that is to destroy anyone who dare disagree with them.
It is hard to believe there is so much venom here and so little of it goes to the barbaric bastards in the middle east. Feel free to hate one party or the other, feel free to show how much you despise our president. Feel free to join the club defending suspected terrorists rights.
And I’m accused of having low morals.

JC,

I AM appalled at the beheadings etc. that are being committed in Iraq. WHAT DID WE THINK WAS GONNA HAPPEN WHEN WE DECLARED WAR AND INVADED??? No, I don’t think this makes it ok!! But WE are in THEIR country, violating THEIR homes. I shudder to think of the acts we would commit here in the US if the tables were turned.

I am also appalled at all the hate and anger among our own people and toward each other.

Our country hasn’t been this weak since Viet Nam, or maybe even since the civil war. We ARE a Nation DIVIDED! This makes us weak! UNITED is the ONLY way we can stand against our enemies. The only way we can unite is to respect each other and embrace our diversity.
sassyliberal

David said:Jack, we Viet Nam era vets got hung out to dry by our government and society who let politics be a higher priority than our limbs, lives, and dignity as soldiers.

I disagree. As a Vietnam veteran I think I was “hung out to dry” by liberal nuts like “Honoi Jane” and people like you.

tomd:

Are you saying other Vietnam Veterans abandoned you? When did that happen?

I’m saying that people back home demonstrating against the war and those who went to other nations to criticize us, those who spit on us and called us “baby killers” and those who posed on enemy anti-aircraft guns and cheered when one of our planes was shot down are the ones who “hung us out to dry”
Although there were a few, I don’t think many vets participated in these events.

No where in the Gonzales Memo does it prove torture is ordered or condoned.
There are other valid reasons for not granting GPW status to terrorists.
In view of the dysfunctional legal system in the U.S., terrorists could easily end up being set free without being punished for their crimes, because there’s always some lawyer out there itching to represent a criminal (usually at the tax payers expense) for reasons other than concern for the welfare of the criminal.

Whatever the status of some POWs, that does not justify torture, and anyone guilty of it should be punished. It’s silly to equate flushing pages of the Qur’an to torture. For someone to get too bent out of shape over that just proves how idiotic they are and how desparate they are to prove condoned torture and abuse.

That’s not to say torture does not occur. It does and has. Criminals exist. Let’s catch those criminals and punish them and all that participated. The Gonzales Memo does NOT pave the way for war crimes. It’s a weak argument to say it does. Abu Ghraib is a clear-cut case of abuses, and the perpetrators are being prosecuted and punished. Where’s the proof that it was ordered or condoned? If it exists, lets see it.

You can’t apply POW rules to Al Qaida because they do not behave like POWs. POWs are required to respect the rank of their captors, so reasonable work and not murder each other or their captors. They are also supposed to represent a state. This is a red herring. Would Osama be a prisoner of war?

Granting POW status to al Qaida would be tantamount to granting that criminal organization legal status. We should not do it and I am glad that George Bush had the courage and intelligence not to.

Just because you don’t grant them POW status does not permit torture. Torture is illegal under U.S. law. Cases have been investigated. People have been punished. We have done our duty.

The only thing torturous about the whole mess is those people trying to pin the blame on the President.

This is what the President says and I stand with him:

Q: Mr. President, how do you react to the continuing reports about mistreatment of prisoners held by American military around the world, and also the perception abroad that the ones that are paying for it are low-ranking soldiers, but that nobody higher up is taking any responsibility?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Pay attention to the contrast between a society which was run by a brutal tyrant in which there was no transparency and a society in which the whole world watches a government find the facts, lay the facts out for the citizens to see, and that punishment, when appropriate, be delivered…

over 20 percent of the people thus far that have been held to account as a result of the Abu Ghraib issue have been officers. There have been over, I think, nine investigations, eight or nine investigations by independent investigators that have made the reports very public.

I’m comfortable that we’re getting to the bottom of the situation and I know we’re doing so in a transparent way. Obviously, ours is a country that respects human rights and human dignity, and if those rights and dignity have been denied, we will hold people to account

Right on Mr. President.

Well, I believe in calling a spade a spade, so I’ll say it - the reason why there is a “JC and Steve are buttheads club”, as you so eloquently put it, is because you are both RACISTS. It’s not politically correct to call someone that, and I’ll probably get a telling off from the Watchblog manager, but there it is.

Where the hell do you get off, calling the people of entire region of the world “animals”? What kind of crazy warped world do you live in where you seriously believe that the sole purpose of a billion or so people is to kill you and yours?

I could go on and on, so I’ll stop here. I apologise for my outburst, but if there’s one thing I can’t stand, it’s racism. I urge you to think again about your views on “these people/animals”. Lesson about number 3 from the excellent film Fog of War - empathise with your enemies.

JC,

It appears that our butthead club is in the minority in terms of total numbers of posters to this thread. Actually its a thread that has changed its core discussion 10 times since it started. It seems that the bleedinbg heart liberals cant stay on a single topic, they have to branch off and confuse the issue so that it becomes very difficult to discern what they are babbling about.

I guess when interrogating a prisoner if they respond with only name, rank and serial number you apologize for inconveniencing them and send them back to their cells. IMO the only reason to take a prisoner is to get information. I sure dont want to spend time and money feeding and guarding him. The answer might be, “take no prisoners”. Which, of course brings us back to the big hole option. The bleeding heart liberals have already twisted my big hole concept to suit their needs by suggesting that we should blow up the entire planet.

Interesting that the board host has already chastised a contributer (Von, I think) for hios agressive use of the term “Dumb”. Also he attributed a quote to David that was made by me. I guess they get flustered when confronted with the fact that there are actually people with radical views challenging what they consider to be the only truths - what they believe.