Torture, and a Summation of the Pertaining Arguments
First off, I invite MG to take a look at what will be the beginning of a long series of arguments against the reliability of Michael Moore. More will come, as time and need permit.
I'm also going to chime in (later) on the idea that fundamentalist Moslem terrorists do not like the US because of our foreign policy. MG has made a statement to that effect (though he didn't mention Moslem fundamentalists specifically), and I used to believe it myself. But I now think it's wrong, and am firmly of the belief that the longevity of the Moslem memory for crimes against Islam automatically removes any pretense of living in peace with fundamentalist Islam. (Example - the reconquista of Spain is something that many fundamentalist Moslems still get angry about, even though it happened in the 1400s, and only as a response to the Moslem conquest of Spain in the 700s.) The evidence I've seen suggests that the worldview held by fundamentalists is one that doesn't allow for lasing peace with infidels. And if that's true, and if the fundamentalists have the kind of hold on the middle east that the Right would have you think, then the policy of uprooting governments and replacing them with democracies may not be such a bad idea after all.
Anyway, more on that later. On to torture.
Given that the debate over torture seems to have reached a standstill, I'm going to take this opportunity to summarize the arguments thus far and then ask a few more questions.
Let's first remove the tangental arguments that have been made, which I believe are quite irrelevant to the question of torture as a whole:
Whether Bush authorized or did not authorize torture is quite irrelevant to the fact that it seems to have happened on his watch. And with a job like the presidency, with that high a profile, you are always responsible for what goes on. My favorite example of this sort of responsibility comes from work, where I've had a few run-ins with a cook who couldn't quite prepare food with the requisite amount of speed. He held everyone up when we got busy. People yelled at him, of course, and his response was inevitably, "I didn't ask for this, okay? My screen just filled up. Give me a break."
To which my response was always, "no." You did ask for this, inasmuch as you decided you wanted to be a cook. Working this hard and taking this kind of crap is part and parcel of what a cook is and does. If you don't like it, go somewhere else, but don't claim that you're surprised that you had to do this kind of work.
Point is, if you're taking the presidency, you shouldn't be surprised by anything that goes on under your watch, nor should you be surprised when you're asked to take responsibility for it. No amount of claiming that it was unauthorized will absolve the presidency from responsibility in the eyes of the rest of the world. And given that politics is very much a popularity contest, as much as it is a contest for who has the best ideas, a scandal like Abu Ghraib is a serious losing blow.
In short, keep tabs on your men. And if you find that they're hurting your cause, stop them.
To the second point:
The issue isn't how many have died from torture, and I don't think we'll get anywhere arguing numbers. One is obviously too many, and even if no one has died, that doesn't discount the use of torture. Numbers are a good reliability indicator, to be sure (i.e., if many have died, it makes torture that much more likely), but given that we have pictures, testimony, etc., I recommend that we address those instances instead of arguing over numbers, which are a great deal more vague.
To the third point:
James is right about the Geneva Convention - inasmuch as Al Qaida was the declared enemy, the Geneva Convention does not apply. The United States, however (as far as I know), hasn't used that argument in their defense. What they have consistently done is denied the use of authorized torture. Bringing in the Geneva Convention at this point is somewhat irrelevant, for if the US is telling the truth, it's not needed, and if the US is lying...well, then the torture is obviously something that the government wants swept under the rug, and therefore arguments about Geneva's applicability wouldn't be of much use.
To the fourth point:
With all due respect to the Moslem community...please. Koran desecration, though it might confine one to an eternity in hell, is not torture. What irks me most about these outcries is the way they appear when placed against the lack of outcries against Saddam Hussein, who desecrated the Koran in the worst way possible - writing it in blood.
In short, no arguments about Koran desecration, please. I'm of the humble opinion that crying about the handling of a holy book is fruitless, and most certainly distracts from questions of real torture.
Thus far, we have sporatic reports of torture going on. I'd like the following questions/statements addressed:
The US government has not made a significant effort to show that it is taking great care to avoid torture. In my opinion, they should, given that a censure of this sort from the rest of the world is something that the US should avoid, if it can. (Note that I haven't even asked anything about the truth of the reports yet.) Anyone who wishes to respond to that, please do so.
The government has not made a great effort to broadcast the utter barbarism of the "insurgents," terrorists, etc. (Check the link at the right to Michael Yon, currently in Iraq, for plenty of examples.) The best example I can think of off the top of my head is the utter lack of pictures showing "insurgents" using civilians as human shields. The maneuver was well-documented, and yet no one thought it wise to take pictures. Something like this would have been a great counter to scenes of carnage reported by Aljazeera. In short, where is the great smear campaign against the enemy that we all know the government is capable of?
And finally, on the truth of the allegations...
Well, comment any way you like on those. But I'd also like suggestions about where the US went wrong, and what we might do now to stop ourselves from falling deeper into trouble. I realize MG has already answered this to an extent (in short, "don't have foreign policy that pisses people off"), but I'd like him to chime in on specific instances, why they occurred, and how they might be prevented.
I'm also going to chime in (later) on the idea that fundamentalist Moslem terrorists do not like the US because of our foreign policy. MG has made a statement to that effect (though he didn't mention Moslem fundamentalists specifically), and I used to believe it myself. But I now think it's wrong, and am firmly of the belief that the longevity of the Moslem memory for crimes against Islam automatically removes any pretense of living in peace with fundamentalist Islam. (Example - the reconquista of Spain is something that many fundamentalist Moslems still get angry about, even though it happened in the 1400s, and only as a response to the Moslem conquest of Spain in the 700s.) The evidence I've seen suggests that the worldview held by fundamentalists is one that doesn't allow for lasing peace with infidels. And if that's true, and if the fundamentalists have the kind of hold on the middle east that the Right would have you think, then the policy of uprooting governments and replacing them with democracies may not be such a bad idea after all.
Anyway, more on that later. On to torture.
Given that the debate over torture seems to have reached a standstill, I'm going to take this opportunity to summarize the arguments thus far and then ask a few more questions.
Let's first remove the tangental arguments that have been made, which I believe are quite irrelevant to the question of torture as a whole:
- Bush did/didn't condone the torture, and so he is/isn't responsible for what happened.
- A great many/great few have died, whether as a result of torture or natural causes ("natural" causes including, say, a bullet to the chest, provided it was inflicted during battle).
- The Geneva Convention does not apply to the prisoners being held.
- Koran desecration, which is not torture, nor should it ever be considered torture.
Whether Bush authorized or did not authorize torture is quite irrelevant to the fact that it seems to have happened on his watch. And with a job like the presidency, with that high a profile, you are always responsible for what goes on. My favorite example of this sort of responsibility comes from work, where I've had a few run-ins with a cook who couldn't quite prepare food with the requisite amount of speed. He held everyone up when we got busy. People yelled at him, of course, and his response was inevitably, "I didn't ask for this, okay? My screen just filled up. Give me a break."
To which my response was always, "no." You did ask for this, inasmuch as you decided you wanted to be a cook. Working this hard and taking this kind of crap is part and parcel of what a cook is and does. If you don't like it, go somewhere else, but don't claim that you're surprised that you had to do this kind of work.
Point is, if you're taking the presidency, you shouldn't be surprised by anything that goes on under your watch, nor should you be surprised when you're asked to take responsibility for it. No amount of claiming that it was unauthorized will absolve the presidency from responsibility in the eyes of the rest of the world. And given that politics is very much a popularity contest, as much as it is a contest for who has the best ideas, a scandal like Abu Ghraib is a serious losing blow.
In short, keep tabs on your men. And if you find that they're hurting your cause, stop them.
To the second point:
The issue isn't how many have died from torture, and I don't think we'll get anywhere arguing numbers. One is obviously too many, and even if no one has died, that doesn't discount the use of torture. Numbers are a good reliability indicator, to be sure (i.e., if many have died, it makes torture that much more likely), but given that we have pictures, testimony, etc., I recommend that we address those instances instead of arguing over numbers, which are a great deal more vague.
To the third point:
James is right about the Geneva Convention - inasmuch as Al Qaida was the declared enemy, the Geneva Convention does not apply. The United States, however (as far as I know), hasn't used that argument in their defense. What they have consistently done is denied the use of authorized torture. Bringing in the Geneva Convention at this point is somewhat irrelevant, for if the US is telling the truth, it's not needed, and if the US is lying...well, then the torture is obviously something that the government wants swept under the rug, and therefore arguments about Geneva's applicability wouldn't be of much use.
To the fourth point:
With all due respect to the Moslem community...please. Koran desecration, though it might confine one to an eternity in hell, is not torture. What irks me most about these outcries is the way they appear when placed against the lack of outcries against Saddam Hussein, who desecrated the Koran in the worst way possible - writing it in blood.
In short, no arguments about Koran desecration, please. I'm of the humble opinion that crying about the handling of a holy book is fruitless, and most certainly distracts from questions of real torture.
Thus far, we have sporatic reports of torture going on. I'd like the following questions/statements addressed:
The US government has not made a significant effort to show that it is taking great care to avoid torture. In my opinion, they should, given that a censure of this sort from the rest of the world is something that the US should avoid, if it can. (Note that I haven't even asked anything about the truth of the reports yet.) Anyone who wishes to respond to that, please do so.
The government has not made a great effort to broadcast the utter barbarism of the "insurgents," terrorists, etc. (Check the link at the right to Michael Yon, currently in Iraq, for plenty of examples.) The best example I can think of off the top of my head is the utter lack of pictures showing "insurgents" using civilians as human shields. The maneuver was well-documented, and yet no one thought it wise to take pictures. Something like this would have been a great counter to scenes of carnage reported by Aljazeera. In short, where is the great smear campaign against the enemy that we all know the government is capable of?
And finally, on the truth of the allegations...
Well, comment any way you like on those. But I'd also like suggestions about where the US went wrong, and what we might do now to stop ourselves from falling deeper into trouble. I realize MG has already answered this to an extent (in short, "don't have foreign policy that pisses people off"), but I'd like him to chime in on specific instances, why they occurred, and how they might be prevented.
posted by NateWazoo at 10:17 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home