Dr. Sanity takes a hard look at the stories the established media seem very interested in covering, and those they... aren't. Great visual, love the table format. Now, compare and contrast:
We've covered what torture means in the Islamic Republic of Iran (hint: not sleep deprivation). Dr. Ledeen adds this revelatory glimpse, which doesn't seem to excite the established media's interest for some reason:
"Not only do they use the full panoply of physical and psychological horrors on their captives, but they then send the victims back into their homes and neighborhoods for brief periods of "parole" or "medical leave," so that their friends and families can see with their own eyes the brutal effects of the torture. The clear intent of this practice is to intimidate the population at large, to break the will of would-be dissenters and opponents, and to maximize the effects of the victims themselves, for the brief respite from the pain of the prisons is mercilessly accompanied by the certainty that the agony will soon resume."
Contrast with the treatment of illegal combatants and terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, and what we see in the media. Meanwhile, Jack Kelly describes his own torture by the U.S. government on a militarized island (don't even get him started on SERE), and Michelle offers an excellent letter from a former Gitmo guard.
Andrew Sullivan (who has thoughtfully abolished visible links for his readers) links to a Washington Post editorial he describes as "exactly right." Its take on the big question before the USA?
"Do we behave as well as we claim, as we should, as we expect of others? That's the beginning of the right conversation -- and why it's fair to write more editorials about exceedingly mild Koran abuse at Guantanamo Bay than about the unspeakable mass graves of Hilla."
With respect, this is boomer narcissism maquerading as seriousness, and Jimmie of TSS does the definitive job in fisking it.
Then, too, some of us thought that maybe the right conversation was, oh, I don't know... how best to protect America and its allies, and crush the Islamofascist death cult that brought us 9/11 and so much more. Not to mention how one should treat those who abide by no laws of war, in a way that preserves and comotes the critical distinctions between civilians and military (vid. Whittle's post Sanctuary).
Read Hiatt's editorial, and it's obvious that he understands neither point.
Meanwhile, over at the OpinionJournal, and speaking of narcissism... just read this bit about a man thought to be the 20th WTC hijacker, and the treatment our media is in a tizzy over. Christina Aguilera music. Lewd photos of women hung around his neck. Oh yeah, and apparently he peed his pants a couple of times. And we're supposed to be horrified at the inhumanity.
Sullivan, meanwhile, describes this as "gut wrenching." I call it U.S. military SERE training, except for the urine part. Which was sloppy, but after all it's a tight budget - and the leather-clad professionals in New York charge too much per hour.
Lileks mocks this sort of thing, in detail and utterly deservedly.
As for the NY Times story about the "possible minor" at Gitmo (who was born in Saudi Arabia, captured in Pakistan/Afghanistan... obviously just on Spring Break), Sullivan omits a lot of things - to the point where one can legitimately wonder why.
For instance, he fails to note that the "corroborated" testimony from the article is the "love shack" with adult videos, and not the claims of beatings. Or the fact that the guy in the article was released in 2004. OR this paragraph that follows right on the heels of his quote, but didn't make it into his post:
"During their captivity, they were kept apart from the main prison population at Guantanamo, confined in a squat building known as Camp Iguana where they were given lessons in English and their native language, allowed to play games and, on rare occasions, taken to the beach."
Mmmm hmm.
Or the fact that if you're a U.S. citizen thrown into a U.S. jail, or most other Western jails for that matter (let alone, oh, any Islamic country's prison system), you can expect a lot worse than even the worst allegations in the Times story, or the Gulf Daily News story.
And there won't be a political blowhard in sight to take your case.
But hey, you're just a citizen, not a terrorist trained to kill thousands at the earliest opportunity. Which means you, my friend, are s--t out of luck with Sully & crew. Their vaunted morality doesn't extend to you.
What makes it even worse is that the U.S. military seems to be doing a fine job investigating abuses - certainly far finer than the American prison system for citizens. Abu Ghraib was headed toward prosecution with or without the media. The Gitmo guard's letter was unequivocal in noting instructions re: reporting suspected abuse. Etc. Etc.
None of this is noted. Perhaps it does not serve the "correct" purposes to note it. But it should be noted. Often.
If you have an argument that we should be doing this differently and using better techniques that would produce better information that would help the USA and its allies destroy Islamofascism and protect their populations, I'm all ears. The Israelis certainly seem, hmm, bemused by the American approach thus far is a polite way of putting it.
But that isn't the intent or the direction of most of the criticisms - certainly not Hiatt's.
I guess you can afford that kind of aimless vanity if you've never really immersed yourself in the reality of those mass graves at Hilla. Or in New York, for that matter. Or the regular cascade of organized hate emanating from that part of the world. You know, the kind of things that might actually play a part in consideration of the nature of our enemy, and the imperatives before us.
If they weren't so casually dismissed by people like Fred Hiatt and thrown down the memory hole, that is.
There are limits beyond which a civilized society should not go. But the links herein demonstrate why it's difficult to have a serious debate on the topic. Humiliation is not torture. Discomfort is not torture. Measures to which one subjects one's own troops in training is not torture. And introducing elements that will make an Islamofascist uncomfortable because of the very beliefs that make you and me legitimate targets for murder are not torture. Those who would concede that latter point, in particular, have declared their surrender to the enemy.
There are many, it seems. So let's remind ourselves:
This is torture. And this is torture. But if you never cover it, it's kind of hard to keep that perspective.
Isn't it?
Frankly, I'm also with Lileks' June 5 point:
"Stories like these must be told, of course, if only to show what the media finds important, and remind us how good things are going. I can imagine in late 2001 asking a question of myself in 2005:
What's the main story? The smallpox quarantine? Fallout from the Iranian – Israeli exchange contaminating Indian crops? A series of bombings in heartland malls?
"Well, no – the big story today has to do with soldiers mishandling terrorists' holy texts at a detention center."
Mishandling? How? Like, you mean, they opened it up without first checking to see if it was ticking, and it blew up –
"No, they handled it in a way that disrespected it. Infidels are supposed to use gloves."
Oh. So we lost, then.
Don't get me wrong. I want us to do the right thing. I don't think there should be a policy that permits interrogators to treat the Qur'an like it was, oh, a Bible discovered in the Saudi airport customs line. But when it comes to the revelations of these Gitmo tales, I cannot care as much as they would like me to care. I cannot. Not to say we should treat the Qur'an with casual disrespect. But if an infidel touches the book with the wrong hand and people react like a two-year-old whose peas are touching the mashed potatoes, well, I understand why this matters, but when measured against the sins of headchoppery and carbombs, it pales to an evanescent translucence. Odd how the story isn't about the rules and the precautions and the spine-cracking efforts to bend over backwards to make sure infidels get out the tongs when approaching the sacred book of the terrori – sorry, the detainees - Sorry, the murderous gynophobic gay-hating fundamentalist theocratic cultural imperialists. No, the story is the infinitesimal number of times in which the rules were breached over the course of years. It's like doing a story about Wal-Mart's employment practices, and following a story about forced overtime with an expose on expired non-dairy creamers in the breakroom. By hammering the tale for three weeks the MSM manages to dilute the impact of the beloved Abu Grabass scandal; pyramidal prisoners, wafting pee – all the same, all front page news. Of course, it's all a seamless whole if your intention is to remind people of the three basic preconceptions of reporting on a war conducted by anyone whose initials aren't JFK: the Pentagon lies, the troops are dullards and brutes, and Nixon is a criminal....
....Hey, Newsweek: call up Tommy Franks and ask for the banner they put on the ship Bush visited. You know the one. Mission Accomplished.
Yes. Mission Accomplished:
"the Kandahar prisoners were not playing by the army rule book. They divulged nothing. “Prisoners overcame the [traditional] model almost effortlessly,” writes Chris Mackey in The Interrogators, his gripping account of his interrogation service in Afghanistan. The prisoners confounded their captors “not with clever cover stories but with simple refusal to cooperate. They offered lame stories, pretended not to remember even the most basic of details, and then waited for consequences that never really came...."
"...The U.S. ambassador to Pakistan reported in January 2002 that prisoners in Kandahar would "shout epithets at their captors, including threats against the female relatives of the soldiers guarding them, knee marines in the groin, and say that they will escape and kill 'more Americans and Jews.'" Such animosity continued in Guantánamo...."
"...Gitmo personnel disagreed sharply over what tools interrogators could legally use. The FBI took the most conservative position. When a bureau agent questioning Mohamedou Ould Slahi—a Mauritanian al-Qaida operative who had recruited two of the 9/11 pilots—was getting nothing of value, an army interrogator suggested, “Why don’t you mention to him that conspiracy is a capital offense?” “That would be a violation of the Convention Against Torture,” shot back the agent—on the theory that any covert threat inflicts “severe mental pain”....
...Reeling under the PR disaster of Abu Ghraib, the Pentagon shut down every stress technique but one—isolation—and that can be used only after extensive review. An interrogator who so much as requests permission to question a detainee into the night could be putting his career in jeopardy. Even the traditional army psychological approaches have fallen under a deep cloud of suspicion: deflating a detainee’s ego, aggressive but non-physical histrionics, and good cop–bad cop have been banished along with sleep deprivation.
Timidity among officers prevents the energetic application of those techniques that remain. Interrogation plans have to be triple-checked all the way up through the Pentagon by officers who have never conducted an interrogation in their lives.
In losing these techniques, interrogators have lost the ability to create the uncertainty vital to getting terrorist information. Since the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, the military has made public nearly every record of its internal interrogation debates, providing al-Qaida analysts with an encyclopedia of U.S. methods and constraints. Those constraints make perfectly clear that the interrogator is not in control. “In reassuring the world about our limits, we have destroyed our biggest asset: detainee doubt,” a senior Pentagon intelligence official laments.
Soldiers on the ground are noticing the consequences. “The Iraqis already know the game. They know how to play us,” a marine chief warrant officer told the Wall Street Journal in August. “Unless you catch the Iraqis in the act, it is very hard to pin anything on anyone.... We can't even use basic police interrogation tactics.”
Mission accomplished.
As we remember all the stories our media consistently (and sometimes openly) choose NOT to cover.
UPDATES:
- Dan Darling Responds with What's Missing from the Interrogation Controversy, and lively, intelligent discussion follows in the comments section.
- "...if respecting the terrorists' Islamic beliefs is so critically important, and we can't just wrap them in pigskin, deny them prayer ("why? you're not a real Muslim anyway") and inter them with dogs - does that mean these guys are the true Islam after all, bonafide believers rather than the hijackers of a religion as they are relentlessly portrayed? Because that's certainly the implication."
- Patrick Ruffini thinks this is all political gold... for the GOP.
- Bird of Paradise Blog's "Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel Interrogates Mohammed al-Qahtani At Gitmo (excerpts)" was too funny not to blog.
No, it's not as bad as what jihadis might do with their prisoners, but we are, last time I checked, the Good Guys. Last I checked, the Good Guys don't beat prisoners to death, to say nothing of anal rape. It's not that hard to figure out.
If we had a decent degree of certainty that everyone who gets beat to death is definitely a terrorist, then maybe I wouldn't find the whole business so upsetting. But I don't think that the U.S. military has that sort of certainty.
Andrew
Thats a lot of baseless accusations.
And by the way, I wonder how well you would do controlling these hard core killers looking for a chance to rip out your windpipe for allah.
That some would die in struggle,, it happens in our own prisons .. Must be nice to have such a delecate pampered brain.
Andrew -- as far as I know there are three cases that match the description of "beaten to death while in US custody." One involves an Al Qaeda terrorist grabbed up by a SEAL team, and delivered in good health to a CIA interrogation team. The prisoner later died and the SEAL Team commander was given a court martial ... and acquitted of all charges. The trial had testimony of SEALs and other military personell that CIA interrogators sat on the prisoner's chest until he stopped breathing.
The other two involve prisoners at Bagram Airbase, one of whom was senior Al Qaeda, and got kicked to death by the guards. Another prisoner was kicked for "amusement" he may have been someone who was turned into the Americans. Both cases have ongoing investigations with charges due soon.
A number of prisoners have died in US custody, some by riots and beatings in prisons (not the level of say Pelican Bay in CA). Others by being shot in breakout attempts, riots, or when captured. Happens. Overall, the stuff reported is FAR less bad than what happens in Pelican Bay, San Quentin, Folsom, and other max prisons in CA.
Andrew- Don't bother, Joe doesn't have any illusions about what's going on, but he certainly isn't interested in saying anything about it.
Currently there are over 20 murders being investigated in our detention facilities. Yet without media focus, the investigations languish and are whitewashed. In Joe's ideal world (illustrated by this link), there would be no impetus for investigations at all.
I sometimes wonder if Joe & co. even bother to read or watch the news before the breathlessly charge into criticizing the "MSM." How else could someone conclude that Howard Dean's "recurrent remarks" about Republicans had not been covered extensively.
This crap is just plain lazy.
Perhaps it might be time to take a look at some of the structural disfunctions specific to the media? Running down that list there are certainly some issues on the right that I- a lefty- would like to see gain attention. But does some stupifyingly simple liberal-bourgeosie conspiracy explain it? Some of it perhaps, but probably not all.
BTW- I'm sure our President would be thrilled if we aired Saudi beheadings every night. Might have we timed them with his hugs & kisses visit with the prince?
SAO: Currently there are over 20 murders being investigated in our detention facilities. Yet without media focus, the investigations languish and are whitewashed.
Yeah, it's a real shame that we aren't allowing our troops to be tried in the media - by people like you, who presume them guilty of murder before they've been tried. And regard any other result as a "whitewash", no doubt.
In the case at Bagram that Jim mentions, Army CIC investigated (INVESTIGATED, not "languished") and forwarded charges of involuntary manslaughter and dereliction of duty.
Why "dereliction of duty"? Because regardless of what the people from your end of the fever swamp think, it is not our policy to kill Muslims and urinated on their Korans. Soldiers who undertake to do so, with or without orders - or who fail to report such an undertaking - fail in their military duties.
The 20 "murders" that you mention are 20 allegations of prisoner deaths OR ASSAULTS.
And you're off the freaking jury, SAO. So are your friends from the Washington Post.
No its fine. Really I mean it. Torture is A-OK as long as its done by Americans to bad guys. The world is with you - all of us every where love the US. You guys are just the best!!!
And when you are done with water boarding, deprevations, pysc manipulations and good ole fashinoned beatings, just bung em on a plane and rendition them out. US exports - always extremely valued everywhere.
God Bless you!
Yup for the hard core,, it would be ...
Course, we arent doing that .. a shame ...
Within geneva, you can also put a bullet thru the brain, I guess if we cant information we can start doing that.
The riggers that sent the last bomb car into that crowd of kids ... too bad we cant place them on pikes and set them out like vlad the impailer.
Till they rot off the pikes into a pile of smelly bones on the ground.
After the first bus full of little Jew tots was bombed .. we should have done that to arafat . then to every lefty journalist that shed tears for Arafat .. that way they wouldnt be cheerleading any more buses full of dead jewish kids at their drug sex parties...
After a while, drugs sex and celbrating blown up kids would go out of style ...
Welp, too bad we cant do that, cause those that shrug past dead kids while they weep for the head choppers,,, sure deserve it ... it would cure their smirk problem.
Come to think of it, we used flame throwers in WWII, lots of them to roast em in the bunkers ... we need to bring that back I think ..
Head shopper running out on fire and collapsing in a piles of flaming smoking BBQ ... we need more of that ... those 120mm HEAT rounds kill too quick ..
there isnt enough screaming to suit me ...
Friend: The world is with you - all of us every where love the US.
First of all, if you're Monsieur de Villepin, you're no friend of mine. Secondly, if we ever have any military need for lame sarcasm and garlic breath, we can get plenty of that from some of our so-called friends here at home.
If you have anything more than that to offer, let's hear it, cowboy.
President Woodrow Wilson on fighting WWI;
"To fight,you must be brutal and ruthless.
Force! Force to the utmost! Force without stint or limit!
The righteous and triumphant Force which shall make Right the law of the world,and cast every selfish dominion down in the dust."
Where have such Americans gone?
An example -- just one example -- of genuine outrages that could be reported by the media, but aren't: A Saudi couple held an Indonesian maid as a virtual slave and abused her for years, right here in the USA, in Colorado. Did you hear about it on CNN?
Dymphna is on it at Gates of Vienna: The Slave Owner's Book Store.
BTW, I think sending the guy an email or two is a good idea...
Ya know, politically i have problems with Guantanimo because in a sense we asked for the scrutiny by bunching up the prisoners and basically painting a big red X for Amnesty and their soulmates in the MSM.
But realistically, read the freaking report. Its just pathetic that the hand wringers are freaking out about chest poking, women strattling, and sleep deprivation. It reads more like the Dallas cowboys training camp than a torture chamber. Seriously. Lileks describes it perfectly: http://www.lileks.com/screedblog/
For those of you who dont know, or have forgotten, torture traditionally consists less of Christina Aguilera and hot towel wraps, and more of electricution of the genitals and dismemberment. When you nail biters manage to say one thing about the real torture chambers in Iran or NK, maybe i'll take your concerns seriously. But until then, im not losing any sleep over the 20th hijacker and OBLs bodyguards having derogatory puppet shows performed for them and Evian dumped over their heads.
"You know, you can believe that invading Iraq was a good and just thing, and be completely behind the overthrow of the Taliban and still believe that there is something slightly wrong when the number of people beaten to death in U.S. custody is well into the double digits. You need not be a flag-burning communist to be horrified at the idea of prisoners in U.S. custody who may or may not be guilty getting ass-raped with blunt instruments and mauled with dogs.
No, it's not as bad as what jihadis might do with their prisoners, but we are, last time I checked, the Good Guys. Last I checked, the Good Guys don't beat prisoners to death, to say nothing of anal rape. It's not that hard to figure out."
While I think some on the left (and a few on the right like Andy Sullivan) have gotten a little obsessive on this, I find it hard to substantively disagree with Andrew.
As for media bias, didnt Time just run a front page article on how info was obtained from a terrorist at Gitmo? Havent read it, but it sounds like Time is running interference for Gitmo, not attacking it.
"Or the fact that if you're a U.S. citizen thrown into a U.S. jail, or most other Western jails for that matter (let alone, oh, any Islamic country's prison system), you can expect a lot worse than even the worst allegations in the Times story, or the Gulf Daily News story.
And there won't be a political blowhard in sight to take your case"
if youre abused by guards in a US jail, there are a number of liberal orgs working on your behalf, IIUC. They may not get play in the press, but that just shows the weakness of in the trenches liberal activists in getting air time.
If youre in a foreign jail, theres Amnesty International, among others.
"Some of us thought that maybe the right conversation was, oh, I don't know... how best to protect America and its allies, and crush the Islamofascist death cult that brought us 9/11 and so much more"
That is precisely the conversation some are trying to have - noting that "best" means how we best do it in ways that fit our national values as well as most effective. And that most effective means most effective at winning the war for hearts and minds, as well as gathering intelligence. I have followed the Post, and Sullivan for awhile now, and while I dont always agree with them, they are quite serious about winning the WOT. Quite as serious as anyone here, I might add. I think Sullivan is wrong about Gonzalez, and the so-called terror memo, but I think he is MOTIVATED by real concern for winning the war on terror, not by narciscism. Nor is the Post.
Whose national values? There's something of a difference of opinion as to what those values are, if I understand American politics right.
You'll have to spell it out for me, I'm afraid, but how does the use of puppet shows, sleep deprivation and fake blood on terrorists clash with 'our values'?
Why isn't equal attention given to torture and murder allegations in U.S. prisons, including the 20 or more prisoners that died in the last few years from being punished in the restraint chair.
Answer: Its hard to blame Bush or Rumsfeld for the actions of prison guards in Connecticut, Florida, Arizona and Utah.
Very good point Shaw. I actually think this situation is very analagous to the prison system. Its clear from the Time article that Rumsfeld approved interrogation techniques that the vast majority of American wouldnt object to (lets remember that if the Geneva Conventions wer applied to these scum as lawful combatants, the would not be allowed to be interrogated at all. Clearly unacceptable). The practice, at least with the high profile, high visability guys in the article seemed acceptable. But further down the foodchain, the day to day actions of soldiers and guards is bound to be less than perfectly in line with this. Show me a prison in the country that doesnt have cases of guard brutality, and freelancing punishments. For that matter, lock those AQ thugs up in a federal pen and see how long they live. Its neither suprising nor horrifying that the closer to the front lines, literally and figuratively, you get, the more incidents of brutality you will find. We arent perfect, but I guarantee our forces are better than anyone else on the planet, and are being upheld to a standard never before applies to any military.
I tend to get trollish on this subject, so after this, from where the sun now stands I will comment on it no more forever. But: I would torture, and I mean torture, every suspected terrorist on earth and wipe my ass with every page of the Koran if it saved one American from death or even injury.
liberahawk writes: "If youre in a foreign jail, theres Amnesty International, among others."
No. Liberalhawk, was. Past tense. Amnesty International has demonstrated that they have abandoned that role and become an arm of the left in pure ideological attacks on the Bush administration.
They will never have my support again.
"We can't even use basic police interrogation tactics." Against Islamofascist terrorists who will happily kill thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of civilians if given half a chance. THAT'S what ought to upset people with their heads screwed on straight.
Glen Wishard (#5) speaks for me, and so does Jim Rockford (#3). Both bring a sense of balance and perspective that is sorely missing from the debate, and not by accident.
A fuller perspective might also have looked at the number of deaths in custody etc. of German prisoners of war during WW2, and why, and how that was handled. Not to mention the appalling situations described in the City Journal article cited at the end of my piece.
Despite his lack of perspective, I believe Andrew Sullivan's motivation is about fighting the war effectively. His omission of highly relevant material in his posts, from the very sources he cites, and his lack of critical scrutiny of same, are nonetheless disappointing. And yes, I DO wonder why.
I re-read Hiatt in the Washington Post, and there's literally nothing in his writing that would suggest anything except a certain white-gloved moral vanity that doesn't even understand the prison system in his own country. Or offer anything that points to any serious consideration of the security issues before us.
The City Journal article is frankly alarming. And I believe that in many cases, that situation is THE INTENDED RESULT of those who have, from Day 1, campaigned for things like prisoner of war status (which would include not hacing to answer question, by the way) for Islamofascist terrorists, whose behaviour is beyond any civilized norm and beyond the clear terms of conduct required to earn that status.
As Lileks puts it so well: "I cannot care as much as they would like me to care."
Or rather, I'm starting to care in a very different way than they would like me to care. The neurotic, hysterical, perspectiveless way in which this issue is being treated is apalling, and the effects it's having on the front lines are the real scandal.
And I don't think it's an accident.
SAO, I will grant that Howard Dean's remarks are getting a fair bit of ongoing coverage at last. Coverage with kid gloves that focuses on politely-phrased disagreement from within his party rather than the extremely pointed questions one would expect if a Republican was uttering mirror-image statements about Democrats, but coverage nonetheless. I'll grant you that one, therefore, and let all of Dr. Sanity's other examples stand.
And I truly don't know if the U.S. President would be thrilled by a rash of features on Saudi beheadings, timed to match his meeting with the prince.
I do know that I would be quite pleased. Though I might suggest adding a few features on the treatment of women, other faiths, and non-Arabs while we're at it.
That's exactly the kind of information Westerners ought to be getting, as we consider our course. Maybe then, we'd worry a bit less about what societies who act this way think of us, and focus instead on what we think of them. And what we intend to do about it.
Glen Wishard: "The 20 "murders" that you mention are 20 allegations of prisoner deaths OR ASSAULTS.
Reality
Fred, I wouldn't. Full-on torture with thumbscrews, shocks, broken bones, etc. tends to be ineffective for gathering real intelligence.
I would happily use disorienting drugs, sodium pentothal et. al. as long as they weren't going to do permanent damage. For illegal combatants who are not citizens of the USA, I see no issue with disorientation, sleep deprivation, holding a prisoner in uncomfortable positions, yelling, pushing, mock executions, cold water being poured on people outside, psychological stress, or turning a prisoner's twisted beliefs against them.
That, and a certain steady volume of military tribunals with follow-on firing squads, for violating the laws of war. Not to mention extradition home to face justice, in certain cases. If Australian SAS can be executed, legitimately, by the Japanese for failing to wear uniforms in their attacks (though Japan's other executions of prisoners were not defensible), then so can an Indonesian al-Qaeda member.
I'd also consider gentler means like bringing in certain Yemeni clerics who have proven helpful. And if that works, I'm perfectly willing to accept forgoing some other means in order to have that advantage instead.
But again, that kind of trade-offs discussion is entirely absent from criticism of Guantanamo Bay. And the absence speaks volumes.
"I'll grant you that one, therefore, and let all of Dr. Sanity's other examples stand."
Umm, no. Our abuse warrants coverage than Syria's or Saddam's because it's our abuse. Even if it's nowhere near as bad and often "namby-pamby," (i.e. stuff I'm fine with) it's still our abuse. Furthermore:Joe;
I would happily use disorienting drugs, sodium pentothal et. al. as long as they weren't going to do permanent damage.
Here is a swell new use for your favorite neuro-hormone oxytocin. ;)
Trust Serum
Re: #22
Let me explain some reality to you, SAO. Reality is innocent until proven guilty, and members of the armed forces are entitled to the same presumption of innocence that civilians are.
The article you linked to mentions 16 homicides, including one allegation of premeditated murder, none of which have been proven in court.
Given the size of the conflict and the scattered and improvised nature of the facilities - not to mention the extremely hostile character of the detainees - I'd say that even if all of these allegations are proven they represent a very low number.
A low number, that is, compared to the number of dead German prisoners during a comparable period of time during WWII. A miniscule number compared to a single night's business in old French Algeria (for which no one was put on trial). A preposterously low number compared to the annual toll of Saddam Hussein's prisons.
PD Shaw makes an excellent point: If your interest in alleged abuse of detainees is humanitarian, you could get a hundred stories a week from Ryker's Island alone - most of them total lies, but more true stories of abuse than you'll ever hear from Al Qaeda or Amnesty International.
That would carry no political freight against George Bush, of course, but surely you can't be guilty of such a crass motivation. Not at the expense of people who are fighting and dying to protect you, and who are trying to control some of the most vicious human beings that ever lived in detention.
"The 20 "murders" that you mention are 20 allegations of prisoner deaths OR ASSAULTS.
Reality
Good grief. And what's the frist statement you see? Military admits that these were cases of homicide or suspected homicide. Suspected as in unproven, SAO. Furthermore, you undermine your own argument by admitting that it is the military, not Newsweek, etc that brought this to light. It was the Army's Criminal Investigation Command. Not "Newsweek uncovers" Not "NYT determines". Not "Courts force Pentagon to release info" ACLU only forced the issue to be made public, it did not force the military to make an investigation, several of which were clearly already underway.
So you'll pardon me if I don't wax apoplectic about this. Transparency is one thing, but overemphasis to the point of characterizing the entire Iraq/Afghanistan mission in the context of a minority of abuses is another thing entirely, and that is what the outrage is about.
From SAO's article:
None in Guantanimo. Like I said, the closer to the front lines you get, the itchier the trigger fingers. Thats reality.
And yet all the cases are being ajudicated. Some soldiers crossed the line and are having to answer for it, just as policemen in America do. So whats the problem again? Should we shut down every police station in America?
Bad things happen in war. Sometimes good people make mistakes, sometimes they snap. Is that really surprising? Are we holding our military to zero defects, or the whole show should be shut down? People are being held accountable, isnt that the best we can ask for?
What I certainly dont see here is evidence of a policy that condones torture and murder. Generally you dont investigate and charge people carrying out standard practice.
A few thoughts:
1. I wonder how the media would react to GOP leaders saying things about Democrats that Dean has said against Republicans (I believe Peggy Noonan had a column up about that topic)?
2. How many "prisoners" of terrorists have been treated well? Also, religious intolerance (e.g. discrimination towards Islam) dovetails nicely for the media with the narrative for prisoner abuse.
3. How many articles on Nexis (or google etc.) are from blogs versus MSM sites? All the topics I cited were covered extensively in many blogs BECAUSE they were not covered in the major news outlets. The interesting aspect of this is that there is a significant lag time during which the MSM appears to ignore or downplay certain topics for as long as possible--usually until a critical amount of blog criticism builds up--and then they report it, usually reluctantly and perfunctorily and on page 10+. Also, you might want to look at how many FRONT PAGE LEDES vs. hidden pages into the story gets. The Oil-for-Food scandal would have gone completely away if not for the persistance of ONE reporter.
As far as the BUSH TANG issues vs. the Kerry ones--whoever says that the Kerry stories got the same coverage in the MSM is simply in denial. Many of the MSM stories simply reported that what the Swift Boat Vets had to say was "discredited" without even reporting the details of what they actually claimed! To find that out, you had to go to their site or to blogs again, since the MSM didn't see fit to cover it thoroughly. And, if Dan Rather and Mary Mapes had pursued the distortions in the Kerry record as diligently as they tried to cook up something on Bush's ANG service, we never would have been subjected to the CBS Memo debacle.
"Some of us thought that maybe the right conversation was, oh, I don't know... how best to protect America and its allies, and crush the Islamofascist death cult that brought us 9/11 and so much more."
Exactly right.
But Sullivan et al don't need to have a conversation about that because Bush and company are taking care of business beyond anybody's wildest September 12th expectations. The only thing for MSM and lackeys (including supposedly pro-liberation waffles like Sullivan) to do is discuss themselves - total boomer narcissism as you say. "Who are we? What are we?" yadda yadda blah blah - it's the 90s therapy culture that won't die. Torture in Iran? Who cares? "Let's look at ourselves" - as if that's not what we do all day, every day, ad nauseum across this country.
When exactly did anyone here claim all the prisoner deaths were unjustifiable homicides? When did I claim all the cases were already as good as a guilty verdict? There have been over a hundred deaths in our detention facilities, and of these, 27 are either homicide or suspected homicide.
That's roughly a 25% rate of death/homicide or suspected homicide, compare that to your red-herring- the US corrections system rate of death/homicide of 1.7%.
The reason I linked to the military report, as opposed to numerous other reports is because I am wanted to garner the most conservative estimate- straight from the horse's mouth. Perhaps you would prefer if I linked to some Sy Hersh article or Amnesty Int. report?
That would carry no political freight against George Bush, of course, but surely you can't be guilty of such a crass motivation. Not at the expense of people who are fighting and dying to protect you, and who are trying to control some of the most vicious human beings that ever lived in detention.
Of course, you would never stoop to assuming "guilt before trial" would you, Glenn. I'm sure the Afghan taxi driver who was crucified in his own cell was indeed a "vicious human being."
And of course, even if all 100+ prisoner deaths were homicides, that would still be a much better record than Saddam, or France in Algeria or what have you. Even if all 27 homicides that end up being investigated turn up guilty, it's still a "relatively low number--" that I'll agree. Pardon me though, if I fail to be impressed by our record as compared to Saddam or colonial France.
I'm not sure if you'd understand this, but in my opinion the torture scandals deserve less attention (and hysteria) from the press and more attention and seriousness from rightwing bloggers. I'd happily jump on board the anti-"MSM" bandwagon if for a minute I thought the goal was something with a semblance of balance (the media today being centrist-democrat). But from what I've seen (and this chart Joe links to makes readily clear), is that the goal is to create the same disfunction, only skewed the other way. On that you can count me out.
from the press and more attention and seriousness from rightwing bloggers.
I fail to understand why confidence in our military code of justice's ability to deal with criminals is viewed as "non-serious". I do not recall anyone here trying to justify homicide. What I have seen is people trying to put these crimes in their proper context, as an aberration, not the norm; rather than overemphasizing them to the point of eclipsing the good works of the millions of honorable men and women in the Armed Services and to the exclusion of the dramatic successes they have achieved in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Joe,
I'm not so sure I buy the "torture doesn't work" canard. If you're in serious pain and you want it to stop, the easiest and fastest thing to think of is the truth. There's also always the threat of more torture if what you say doesn't turn out to be true. If torture is so ineffective, why has it been used by nearly every human culture for as far back as human cultures go?
"That's roughly a 25% rate of death/homicide or suspected homicide, compare that to your red-herring- the US corrections system rate of death/homicide of 1.7%. "
Waaait a minute there apples to oranges. Is that statistic the percentage of total deaths contributed to homicide? Or the death rate in prisons? Either way, its a pointless statistic, AQ guys we pick up on the battlefield arent anything like the average prison population who will be dying of anything from old age to aids. What the hell else would these guys be dying from?
Either their war wounds kill them, or somebody else does, thats pretty obvious. Now find me the percentage of prisoners that are murdered in prison compared to the percentage of AQ that have been murdered in custody and we can talk.
"The reason I linked to the military report, as opposed to numerous other reports is because I am wanted to garner the most conservative estimate- straight from the horse's mouth."
We'd prefer that you acknowledge the military was investigating these allegations and charging the offenders, not encouraging the practice as the fruit cakes you point to claim.
" I'm sure the Afghan taxi driver who was crucified in his own cell was indeed a "vicious human being."
Are we back to unsupported allegations again?
"I'm not sure if you'd understand this, but in my opinion the torture scandals deserve less attention (and hysteria) from the press and more attention and seriousness from rightwing bloggers."
Im still trying to figure out what the scandal is. What went wrong and who handled it improperly aside from the specific individuals already being charged? A lot of sound and no fury. All the evidence being pointed to if anything shows an administration insisting on remarkably mild interrogation techniques and a military thoroughly rooting out any improper or illegal killings. Is that not the case? The usual suspects are screaming 'torture' 'deaths' 'Guantanimo' as though they are all the same charge, which they are simply not, but it seems the point is to throw a bunch of crap against the wall and hope the public cant tell the difference.
I wonder how the media would react to GOP leaders saying things about Democrats that Dean has said against Republicans (I believe Peggy Noonan had a column up about that topic)?
I think the reason Dean gets off the hook here is because he ridiculed whites and Christians, not because he's a Democrat. If he had made a statement of equal weight about blacks or Jews he'd be in deeper do-do.
How many "prisoners" of terrorists have been treated well? Also, religious intolerance (e.g. discrimination towards Islam) dovetails nicely for the media with the narrative for prisoner abuse.
The media covers treatment of prisoners of terroists extremeley well. The larger issue (as you pointed out) really is the overall treatment of Jews and Christians by Muslims, and that is an issue that is bit more complex than some poor guy getting his head sawed off.
How many articles on Nexis (or google etc.) are from blogs versus MSM sites?
All major paper searches. The reason John Bolton takes so much precedence is because it fits into several established narratives concerning domestic politics, and because he's such a character. Kofi certainly deserves to go down, but the failure of the oil-for-food scandal to reach greater coverage (and it already got a lot, despite your claims), was due to Sen. Coleman's poorly-strategized efforts. If perhaps we had put someone more compitent in his position and if the Bush administration had not simulataneously downplayed and undercut Coleman's efforts-- then perhaps coverage would have been greater.
As far as the BUSH TANG issues vs. the Kerry ones--whoever says that the Kerry stories got the same coverage in the MSM is simply in denial.
I guess it depends on how seriously you take Fox News, CNN, the Washington Times, NY Post, and all the other MSM outlets that gave extensive coverage to whether the allegations "were true or not." Nothing particularly conclusive was said about Bush, either.
SAO: Perhaps you would prefer if I linked to some Sy Hersh article or Amnesty Int. report?
Actually I would prefer that. I prefer people who are upfront about their hostility to the military and to the War on Terror, to people who slink around behind insinuations.
Who's doing that, you ask? That would be you, with your talk about murder and your assertions that the CIC is whitewashing investigations.
I'm sure the Afghan taxi driver who was crucified in his own cell was indeed a "vicious human being."
And are you also sure that all the people we detain are taxi drivers?
I don't know if you're aware of it or not, but the taxi driver was not crucified. He was shackled by the wrists and his alleged abuse is being compared to the Passion of Christ, in a particularly offensive bit of left-head agitprop that is floating around the left-head blogs, like a Koran in a toilet bowl.
Unlike Jesus Christ, the taxi driver was not killed. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the soldiers who died in the rocket attack he was accused of staging.
Pardon me though, if I fail to be impressed by our record as compared to Saddam or colonial France.
And excuse me if I fail to be impressed by the efforts of the purblind left to act as the Conscience of Civilization.
That's roughly a 25% rate of death/homicide or suspected homicide, compare that to your red-herring- the US corrections system rate of death/homicide of 1.7%.
I don't think those stats can hold water. Every year a large number of prisoners in US corrections will die of old age, skewing the death/homicide rate down. While not improbable, I doubt any of the detainees have died of old age over the last couple of years.
Out of 68,000 detainees, there have been 27 suspected homocides. 0.0397% Might be safer in military detention than in some major U.S. cities.
I posted this on Dr. Sanity's blog also.
Dr. Sanity, this is absolutely brilliant! I thought the theocracy juxtaposition was especially exquisite--
but...
You are drawing a false analogy between ESC research and "every other kind of SC research". You know they are not the same, and you know better. Embryonic cells are undifferentiated and plastic--they can become anything. Personally i don't care if you are for ESC or against it--just don't try to tell me-- (like the odious "bioethics" council)-- that they are the same.
Your line item definitely seems to equivalence them. :-(
This is going to push me off the side of the angels fersure, but i saw George Bush himself offering this false meme complex in a televised speech on FOX. One more time. ASC != ESC
Is everyone copacetic on that?
umm, for those of you challenged in mathspeak, != (bang equals) means not equal.
Glenn Wishard: "I don't know if you're aware of it or not, but the taxi driver was not crucified. [...]
Unlike Jesus Christ, the taxi driver was not killed."
reality
Another startling juxtaposition... Last time I checked, hanging someone by their arms until they suffocate was called crucifiction. Perhaps you could come up with a better term, Glenn?
Actually I would prefer that. I prefer people who are upfront about their hostility to the military and to the War on Terror, to people who slink around behind insinuations.
Coming from someone with as much bad faith as you? Well, I'll take this as a compliment.
Jinn: chopping up babies again ?
Ohh thats right, we are just blobs of protoplasm, and our right to life starts when the birth certificate is filed .. According to singer, even that should be fungible.
Not all of us are utitarians Jinn ..to some of us, destructive experimentation on humans no matter what stage of life has been abhorrent since the NAZIs who introduced the concept to us.
Rights begin before a person has the ability to complain ...
Jinderella, I am not arguing that ESC research and other SC research are the same, only that the media is obsessed with the former and not the latter. However, it is the latter that have (IMHO) greater potential to work, and actually have already resulted in some medical breakthroughs (see This Article for example) (Hope I got that link right). Personally, I don't have a problem with either type of research, but if the majority of people have an ethical problem with ESC, I don't see why the government should pay for it--but that's just my opinion. The point of my table was to show that there is only one-sided coverage of a fairly complex medical research issue.
SAO: Last time I checked, hanging someone by their arms until they suffocate was called crucifiction.
Cruci-fiction, indeed. That's pretty funny, and I was beginning to think you had no sense of humor at all.
You are correct, however, that the man died. You might also be correct that his death resulted from abuse, and that he was innocent of the rocket attack he was arrested for. A court will decide that.
In the meantime, have fun with your Christ on the cross metaphor.
Dr. Sanity, my argument is that this is a false analogy. Somehow, because of relative right/left positions on embryonic versus non-embryonic SC research, I'm a republican and Bush supporter that lands on the wrong side of the Mason Dixon line on this. I was HORRIFIED when Bush equivalenced ESC and ASC in his FOX telecast the other day-- I was HORRIFIED when Kass and Krauthammer offered cell cultures from the 11 existing lines (knowing full well those lines were contaminated with mouse feeder cells and unsuitable for human research) during the 2004 election campaign. Look at Raymond's comment--i'm a satanic baby chopper because i disagree with the adminstration's policy on stem cell research?
Dr. Sanity, we may get good results from ASC research. we may even get quantitatively more or better results, but you are as big a liar as the "bioethics" council if you say they are qualitatively the same results as we would get from ESC.
AND!!
The media has a perfect right to cover an avenue of research blocked for political considerations--Let pubmed and the journals cover ASC breakthroughs. No one is is mounting political opposition to ASC research.
You are what you do ... no words can seperate the act from the act ... no twist of reason can seperate the act from the act... no amount of hand waving ( NO look over HERE ) can distract the act from the act.
As for if Satan (or just plain craven disregard) has anything to do with it, thats a different argument.
You want license to do something evil and ugly, no matter how much fancy ribbon, candy sprinkes, its still feces with icing.
An attempt to dress evil in silk.
..
Raymond, i am not arguing the morals here. I am saying that the line item in Dr. Sanity's table is wrong. I think the media should give more coverage to ESCR. Because one avenue of scientific exploration is being legislated against while the other is not.
My other point is, that when the left accuses GWB of lying about WMDs or his TANG service, we all know that is not truth. However, GWB is lying when he implies or says that ESCR is qualitatively the same as ASCR. I think that is very wrong.
The left accuses GWB of misleading Ameria on progress in Iraq, atrocities at Gitmo, etc. But this adminstration really is deliberatly attempting to mislead american voters by misrepresenting the ESCR/ASCR controversy. Why do that? They are attempting to have their cake and eat it too. Why don't the dems blow the whistle on them? Because the dems are afraid that they will appear to be the same babychoppers that you are styling me. The dems are wooing conservative christians.
GW is our elected president. I voted for him. He has a perfect right to restrict ESCR. But he does not have a right to lie about it, and say ASCR is just as good.
/rant off
jinn
Of the list of NAZI reasons for exterminating people, from the Jews to the sick, im sure they had a long list of utilitarian reasons.
To engage in that debate you have already accepted evil. Only the moral issue matters, it trumps the utility.
Ohh they would have called me closed minded an unreasonble I know, I would have perished in the camps due to that im certain.
We dont participate in dicussions of any angle about chopping up babies for body parts ... that is not a part of our world. .... The only word we have for that is NO.
Now, start talking about other stem cell sources that dont involve inseminated eggs and Im part of the discussion, Bush is part of the discussion ..
We dont talk about the quality of prisoners human skin for lampshades compared to other materials while we talk about lamps ... despite the fact that they sold those in germany.
To us,,, they dont belong in lamp shops, they should not exist, so the discussion of the relative merit of human skin for lamp shades is moot.
raymond...i am not talking about that--can't you read? I said the Bush admin has a perfect right to legislate against ESCR. What they cannot do is tell us that ASCR will yield the same results!!!!
This is the side of the angels--*we are not allowed to lie to get our way!!!!*
Again, you look past the principled position, the relative merit argument is moot, if you destroy firtile eggs, thats where consideration stops.
We are in the debate about lampshades, but those made of human skin are simply not part of the conversation.
Your accusing someone of mixing in something that he isnt even considering .. its a dark place we dont look ... evil and ugly. its a blank where the decent do not go. we dont care to converse about anything past that persons right not to be murdered, the use of his body parts to benifit others, the value and returns therof is a point in the conversation we never reach.
You lose us at the instant of the murder.
Lampshades are nifty, but certain types are not part of the conversation.