We Don’t Torture

I think this is one of the many examples of how wrong the people who declared “Irony Is Dead” after September 11 were. The Bush Administration has kept irony alive. Reuters missed a whole bunch of “irony quotes” and failed to convey the proper tone of the story:

PANAMA CITY (Reuters) - The “U.S. government” is aggressively taking action to “protect” Americans from terrorism but “we do not ‘torture’,” “President” Bush said on Monday, responding to criticism of reported “secret” CIA “prisons” and the “handling” of “terrorism suspects…”

…”Anything we ‘do’ to that ‘end’ in this ‘effort’, any ‘activity’ we ‘conduct’, is ‘within the law’,” Bush said. “We do not ‘torture’. And therefore we’re ‘working’ with Congress to make sure that as we ‘go forward’, we make it possible, more possible to do our ‘job’.”

In a media address today, President Bush declared that “We do not torture.” He went on to say that the secret service would break the knee caps of any expert that might contridict him, and that should such an expert have a relative in the CIA, that the relative’s name would be leaked to the press. This of course would be done in the name of protecting “freedom”.

Torture is maltreatment in order to gain information. We don’t really get any information out of our prisoners so it’s not torture. Our incompetence is our defense!

The most mind-boggling aspect of this (and there are many candidates for that honor, I admit) is that fact that WE NEED CONGRESS TO PASS A LAW THAT SAYS TORTURE AND INHUMANE TREATMENT IS WRONG.

Shoshana Johnson, who knows a thing or two about being a POW, was interviewed after the Abu Gharib story first broke. She was appalled that anyone would use the “just following orders” defense. Her point was that anyone would know that such an order was wrong and would be justified in disobeying such an order, assuming there was an order to begin with.

So - whose experience means more? A soldier who was captured and held prisoner in Iraq or some old man who got five deferments?

I heard a defense of this statement late today. Seems that, well, of course we would never use icky torture, but no need to let the bad guys know that.

Except we have used torture. If someone were to put out pictures of captured American soldiers forced to mimic oral sex on each other, forced to pile naked on top of each other, forced to crawl around like dogs on leashes, forced to stand in “stress positions” on boxes while hooded and wired up for possible electrocution…would President Dumbass say “Aw, shucks, that ain’t torture”?

We could always use the appeasement approach, it seems to be working well in France…..

Why does “We do not torture” remind me so much of “I am not a crook”???

Shrub: We do not use torture. Ergo, dickie&I are opposed to a ban on torture.

Anyone with functional frontal lobes gets a headache from this tortured logic. But I guess folks who are willing to believe that Jesus is the offspring of a guy named god and a virgin named Mary will believe anything.

Thanks, Bob. I was mildly stunned at WF’s apparent suggestion that the riots in France are related to some policy against using torture, but you put your finger on what was wrong with his logic.

FUBAR

“any activity we conduct, is within the law,” Bush said.”

Much more than torture, I think the important point Bush is talking about here - and he got the idea from Cheney - is that he is the president and he can do whatever he wants. He can torture people and say that he is churning butter. Any activity engaged in by the President is within the law so any law that says that something the President does or has ordered or makes him frown is illegal. As Judge Dredd said, “I am the law” Quibbling over what torture is or isn’t is moot after the President said “we don’t torture.” That is it. Anything else they do is not torture. If you think it is, you need to redefine torture. The problem is on you not him.

There is a War on Terror (without Congressional mandate?) and this gives the President another veil. It is mostly unnecesary because in a democracy we should not question our leaders. But now, Bush gets to act “in his role as Commander in Chief” and when he says he is doing that, (which is pretty much always) Congress, the Press, the Supreme Court, State Governments, any individual citizen, and/or any grouping of citizens have no right whatsoever to question him or doubt him. Adam Felber is lucky that he isn’t arrested under the Alien and Sedition Acts - in this post - he questioned something the Commander in Chief did in war-time.

If Adam wants to question our war time leadership, he should run for president out of prison as a freacking pinko for the Socialist Party like Eugene Victor Debs.

War people! WAR!!!!!! everything else goes out the window. Bush may as well be GOD. Don’t question Dear Leader: any activity we conduct is within the law.

Harold: Tim, I recently had a Neocon friend argue long and hard against the (in his opinion) preposterous notion of “Gay Marriage” by maintaining that sexual intercourse is the basis of marriage and that nothing that homosexuals engage in with each other counts as sex.I wanted to point out to him that by his narrow definition of “sex”, Clinton’s statement about not having sex with Monica Lewinsky was completely truthful..

First, Mazel Tov to a neocon for doing ANYTHING long and hard. Second, this was exactly my gripe with Clinton - when he made the move that sex means “evolutionarily correct sex,” he denied that gay sex was “sex,” thereby insulting one of the groups that had supported him. If you took his pathetic linguistic gymnastics seriously, you had to conclude that he really doesn’t believe homos can hump.

Off-topic (but Adam doesn’t care, he’s so busy having a life)—I just don’t know what to do with this newsflash from Kansas:
“In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.”

Apparently, the biggest change is to drop the word “natural.” Do they get to do that?

“Because Jesus wants it that way.”

- New explanation for all scientific phenomena and best line from “The Dream Team”, just edging out “Go ahead. I got lots of girlfriends.”

Have any of you come to grips w/ the fact that these folks would love to cut your head off w/ a butter knife so they can go to heaven and their 72 virgins? And y’all think I’m a wing-nut.

Wow, now I’m a neo-con? I guess my votes for Gore and Kerry don’t count.

What I was trying to say is that “We do not torture” and “I did not have sex with that woman” were both disingenuous statements (if not outright lies) that were potentially impeachable (well, one more or less was, and the other we can only hope). Clearly, “We do not torture” is the more serious example of dissemblance. I was practicing some wishful thinking on the ultimate result of the statement.

Back to working on my Richard Perle fan web site.

WF

“And y’all think I’m a wing-nut”.

We can only go by what you say.

Dave D - one of my favorite stories from when the Massachusetts legislature went into round the clock hearing on gay marriage (far more important than education or health care, which never merited such action), a reporter found a group of men standing around. They were all veterans, I think, and very oppsed to gay marriage. Why? it’s the sex - two guys, eeeuuwww. Well, you know that sex pretty much ends after marriage, don’t you? One by one they all nodded. So gay marriage would put an end to that, right?

It’s very simple, really. They’ve officially defined torture to mean only things our people don’t do, and therefore the President can honestly say “we don’t torture.” It doesn’t convince most Americans or the rest of the world, of course, but it lets him pretend he’s being a strong leader.

Cheney is fighting hard against the McCain amendment because it would officially change the definition from what Gonzales and John Yoo decided back to what sane people think is torture, and then, like magic, it will mean that our people did torture!

“Have any of you come to grips w/ the fact that these folks would love to cut your head off w/ a butter knife so they can go to heaven and their 72 virgins? And y’all think I’m a wing-nut.”

See, here we have the assumption that everybody who has been detained is a terrorist. Lotsa these guys were just in the wrong place at the wrong time, cab drivers, someone that someone named while they were being tortured, maybe a neighbor who didn’t want to return your leaf-blower, etc.

Also, please note that the Abu Ghraib pictures that we all saw were justt the tip of the iceberg. There is much worse stuff that went on in there, including the rape of children to get their parents to talk.

I, for one, will not defend that kind of behavoir.

I don’t think we should be leveling personal attacks on WF. Let’s just deal with his arguments. WF, Dave and Vinft are right. The vast majority of the detainees in Abu Ghraib were just that—people who had been detained. They were rounded up off the streets just because they were nearby when something happened. They weren’t convicts deserving of punishment, and most of them weren’t even suspects.
As for the detainees in Gitmo, they were apparently rounded up for FIGHTING BACK when their country was INVADED. I’m not saying that the Taliban wasn’t evil—I just don’t think we should be surprised that people fight for their country. They should be considered POWs and treated accordingly.
On top of that—even if your sense of honor doesn’t revolt against stooping to torture (something we reviled Saddam for)—are the realistic arguments against it, such as the fact that it produces poor results, and the loss of our country’s standing as an example of freedom and democracy.

Redshift,
Your intelligent argument overwhelms me…???

Ann,
They weren’t rounded up off “the streets”. They were rounded up on the “battle field”. I’m not “for torture”, I’m “for winning”, and overwhelmingly.

Dave,
Are you implying that American soldiers raped children? If so, I’d be the first to want war crimes trials and death penalties for those responsible. Where’s your proof, or accusations, or insinuations, or your fortune teller?

Vinft,
Maybe you missed out on the on-line beheadings, but I can verify that they don’t always use a sharp knife.

Adam,
You said it, “do the right and effective thing”. Also, you should give fair warning, did Frozen Sea Skunk change his name to Redshift?

Ann wrote:
“WF, Dave and Vinft are right. The vast majority of the detainees in Abu Ghraib were just that — people who had been detained. They were rounded up off the streets just because they were nearby when something happened. They weren’t convicts deserving of punishment, and most of them weren’t even suspects.”

WR wrote:
“Ann, They weren’t rounded up off ‘the streets’. They were rounded up on the ‘battle field’. I’m not ‘for torture’, I’m ‘for winning’, and overwhelmingly.”

From an interview with Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinsky:

“Q: At what point after you arrived in Iraq did the U.S. begin rounding up security detainees — people arrested by the U.S. military on suspicion of….”

“A: Terrorism. In late August [2003] they started these very aggressive raids. The first operation, up in Mosul, resulted in 37 security detainees arriving in Abu Ghraib. Within about 30 hours, the military interrogation teams had interviewed each one of those 37 and determined that only two of them had value and needed to be held. The other 35 were eligible to be released. And that was a firestorm, because nobody was going to be released.

“I was at a briefing over at [Lt. Gen. Ricardo] Sanchez’s headquarters [as the head of coalition forces in Iraq] and the deputy commander, [Maj.] Gen. [Walter] Wodjakowski, turned around to me and said, ‘You are not to release any one of them, Janis.’ And I said, ‘Sir, that information came from the military intelligence.’ And he said, ‘Get me somebody from the military intelligence.’ So this captain comes over and is trying to explain that none of these 35 had any further value. They were in fact in the wrong place at the wrong time, [gathered] up with the target individuals. So, Gen. Wodjakowski now turns on this guy and tells him, ‘You are not to release any of them. Do you understand me? Am I making myself perfectly clear? You are not to release any one of them.’ And this captain tries valiantly to explain that we’ll be holding innocent people, and Gen. Wodjakowski says he doesn’t care.”

As Molly Ivins pointed out in the essay I linked on the most recent Felberpost (working my way backwards through recent FA):

Torture. Does. Not. Work.

And yes indeed, we are detaining, torturing, and sometimes killing innocent people. Of course, we are also white phosphoring, napalming, 500 pound bombing, and otherwise discomfiting rather larger numbers of Iraqi civilians whose only mistake was living over one of the world’s largest pools of the devil’s own house wine.

Subject: God’s mangy chihuahua

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/10/religion.robertson.reut/index.html

If Pat Robertson predicts imminent disaster to the “godless” and it doesn’t happen, does that not detract from the majesty of his god?

Yo, Pat, have you read your Thomas Aquinas lately?

G-O-D O-F T-H-E G-A-P-S

Maybe Sunday Schools around the country should reexamine THEIR curricula.

Well put, Hedera. Have we learned nothing from our incarceration of the Japanese during World War II or from the McCarthy era? We can sacrifice our morals and our ethics, and some will feel safer in the short-run. But in the long-run it will be a stain on our national history and a legitimate cause of national shame for all time. We become a terrorist nation.

Cooper, I work in a Trust Department, and one of our customers was a Japanese gardener who designed the gardens for the World Fair held years ago in New York (I believe it was). He was incarcerated during WWII and lost everything. He had written out his story, which I read after his death, and it tore at my soul. Our young people should learn this history the way German youth learn about their Nazi history so that we will be less likely to repeat our errors.

cooper, here’s to your Aunt Fumi. I actually find it more amazing that she taught public high school for 40 years than that she survived the internment camps, if I may be a little flippant. Californians are - some of us anyway - just a leetle tetchy on the subject of the Japanese internment camps.

One of the things I like about California is the extreme range of races and cultures here - and they’re all mixing together. Give us another 3-4 generations and everybody will be a little of everything. We went to the Maine coast in the fall of 2000 and it was incredibly gorgeous, but I was flabbergasted at the homogeneity. It wasn’t that I didn’t see any German or Japanese or Italian names - I didn’t see any Irish names! We might as well have been in England. We stopped in Boston on the same trip, though, so that made up for it.

Cooper,

I come from drooling, inbred Appalachian cretins (Kentucky), so don’t write us all off. And remember the range - from Terry Sanford all the way the Jesse Helms - mountain Anglos are more like bipolar than anything else, although the rise of reactionary American conservatism certainly has a drooling, inbred, cretinous quality about it.

Waterfowler,

Peace, Love, and a Loaded .357 Magnum (everyone in San Francisco should have a hip-mounted howitzer).

Isn’t it a pity that folks aren’t as excited by recent history as they are about ID. Geez, I know I hate to relive my mistakes (after all, there are so many to choose from), but at least I’m willing to learn from them. Then again, someone will be saying the same thing in 20 years’ time when some brave soul mentions the “Terrorism Response mistakes of the early years of the 21st century” in the same breath as wrongful internment, Nazism, the stolen generation, global warming. Pity a bit of hindsight vision doesn’t happen right now.

Murray,

I was in late elementary and then junior high school during the height of McCarthyism. The father of one of the students at my junior high school, an air force officer, took it upon himself to come to our school library and check our books to see if any of them were com-symp. I was instinctively offended (but then my parents were pretty even-handed, although essentially conservative, and they had no use for censorship). I suspect it would depend on the influences on your thinking at the time. But clearly humans do at first tend, as a group, to go along, especially in the context of war or other fear-inspiring circumstances. We are still all too tribal, all too easily led, and all too short-sighted (for starters).

Of course, I also remember being in a distinct minority when I said on the school bus (we’re talking Orange County, Florida mid-50s) that I was happy segregated schools had been ruled unconstitutional. The real surprise, now that I look back on it, was that no one hit me and I was not ostracized, only looked on as a curiosity for that particular view.

I should imagine the list of things for which our grandchildren will be ashamed of us will be rather long, and it will include things that have inflicted permanent harm, which we tolerated long after we had every opportunity to recognize what we were doing.

Oh, I don’t know. I think you’re all being a bit tough on this administration. I mean, come on… the Iraqi Interior Minister said that at least nobody was beheaded. Let’s put our standards in perspective here….