In response to a lofty statement by Andrew Sullivan, The Corner’s Jonah Goldberg makes an observation that breaks out of the box, rips across the room and smashes through the wall of a oft-repeated argument against the use of “torture” during wartime. (I added scare quotes for a reason – the definition of torture has ballooned in the post-Abu Graihb debate so as to become virtually meaningless.) Nonetheless;
Can we stipulate that during the Civil War, the Spanish- American War, World War One, World War Two, Vietnam etc that Americans committed some truly horrible deeds in the process of fighting those wars? John McCain’s hero — Teddy Roosevelt — applauded tactics in the Phillipines that Andrew would no doubt condemn. Did we “destroy” our civilization then? Did we “lose our soul”?
The argument that using horrible tactics will cost us everything is predicated on the assumption that such tactics have never been used. For if torture costs us our soul and destroys our civilization, how is it that we have a soul or a civilization to lose at this late date to begin with? These tactics may cause individuals — like Andrew — to lose faith in our civilization or its soul, but it is not up to him to declare such things null and void if we go another way.
Discuss.
Heh.
update Read this, too.
Sullivan lost it before the election last year. He has terminal BDS and it can’t even be cured by moving to Canada and marrying his boyfriend and adopting triplets and marching against war toys, er, military issue panties. He is pathetic and might as well join hands with Momma Moonbat Sheehan.
GWB hit one out of the park today with his Veterans Day speech in Pennsylvania. Told BDS sufferers to get a grip on reality. Speaking of The Corner, one contributor called it his “Gettysburg Address.” About friggin time. Move on or move out of the way.
Torture Legal in canada
I sure am not a bleeding heart lefty, but I abhor the idea of commiting torture against a captured enemy. I can buy the idea of canning someone as punishment for a convicted crime, but to start electrocuting someone’s testicles (as an example) to get him to speak is beyond acceptable. There’s got to be a better way.
But saltcracker, can you find examples of that happening in recent history? I must confess that, as a Christian, I would be deeply offended by someone desecrating the Bible or its teachings (oh, I see a class action suit here), but watching someone flush it down the toilet…is that torture? Really? Check out the book “A Man Called Intrepid” or what the Japanese did to get info, or the Vietnamese. THAT is TORTURE.
This other stuff is liberal bs.
salt cracker: You think canning someone is suitable punishment? Isn’t that a little extreme? Geez…..Greenpeace gets upset when a couple of dolphins get mixed up with tuna…..but YOU want to do it to people?
Saltcracker,
Please put the stick down and step away from the strawman. There have been no credible allegations that any of these captured terrorists have had electricity applied to their genitalia. The whole debate on the issue of our treatment of captured terrorists will be more productive if we stick to what we know, rather than what we assume.
We do not have a soul to lose if we have condoned torture.
Bill Sampson confessed under torture to a crime he did not commit. He was sentenced to death.
If torture is used, and a person confesses, what has the torturer gained? He has gotten a confession out of a person who probably is stating more than he knows, or something he knows nothig about at all, just to get the torture stopped. How is this reliable information?
The West holds itself up ans the be all and end all of democracy and freedom. The US attacked Iraq because of Saddam’s behaviour, and yet we know from Abu Graib that they have committed the same atrocities themselves.
To lower ourselves to the lowest of the low says much more about us than it does about the ‘bad guys’.
you know I would guess that the percentage of people that are talking about torture have never been in the military. What we need is a little perspective, what the terrorists do is torture, what the japanese did is torture. Having a dog bark at someone naked, making them wear a bra, posing naked in a pryamid is not torture. If you do think that is torture get a life!
http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/051114fa_fact
You can pick and choose what you consider ‘torture’ and those that you have named are not what we are talking about. If you were honest you would know that. Torture says more about the torturer than it does about the one being tortured. Do you have an answer to the question as to why all the areas where torture is being practiced are outside the US and Canada? Is it because the vast majority of citizens know that torture is wrong? Is it so we can say we do not condone torture in our countries? Define the word ‘terrorist’–and then draw your own conclusions.
And yes–the military knows all about torture–ask the Vets from the Agent Orange areas, ask Matt Stoppford–they live with torture every day–courtesy of DND and our own government.
One problem I have is that only lower ranks have been screwed with courtmartials.
Marc Jacobson, who served on the Defense Department Prisoner Policy Team from 2002-2003, explains what all the fuss is about:
[The problem is] the perception that we tossed off [the Geneva Convention] and said, “We’re going to have nothing to do with this; we’re going to create our own set of rules,” that not only created a perception to the world that we are not going to adhere to the rule of law, but from a functional standpoint, I think it may have put our own troops in danger. You have a situation now where other nations can say: “Because of the different nature of this war, we are not going to treat U.S. troops as prisoners of war. They are enemy combatants. I’m sorry – military necessity. We’re following the precedent you’re setting.
Steve–you are absolutely correct with both statements.
GWB standing on the aircraft carrier declaring the war was over opened the door to not naming prisoners as prisoners of war–thereby negating the Geneva Convention. I have no doubt that this is the precise reason he made that statement. Little did he and others know that it could bite them in the ass re treatment of their own people–or they didn’t care? Hell, it is only those same lower rank cannon fodder that would get caught anyway. There are plenty more where they came from. Remember the famous statement –America looks after it’s own? Yeah, right!
The Vatican, on torture:
“2297 Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity.
Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.90
2298 In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.”
(From Catechism of the Catholic Church)
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P80.HTM
From http://www.philosophynotes.com/politics/iraq/torture.htm :
“After the initial reports on torture at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq became public last April, the Vatican�s newspaper, L�Osservatore Romano, published an unprecedented three editorials in one week condemning the U.S. policy of torture and treating human beings as “animals.”
In a May 8, front-page editorial, the Vatican newspaper said: “The abuse and cruelty against the prisoners represents the radical denial of human dignity and of fundamental human values. Brutal cruelty against one�s own kind is in tragic opposition to the basic values of civilization and democracy.”
Speaking on Vatican Radio, Roberto Cardinal Tucci, SJ, condemned the abuse of Iraqi prisoners, charging: “This is a matter of crimes, real crimes, because even in war there are rules to be respected. . . .
“We need to pray for the victims of these acts of torture and for those who committed them, so that they recognize what they have done before the U.S. justice system, which I hope will run its course.”
Perhaps the most eloquent of Vatican officials addressing the subject was Francis Cardinal Stafford, OMI, of Chicago who told Inside the Vatican�s Delia Gallagher in a May 13 interview that the United States was violating its own principles by authorizing torture.”
There’s a good discussion of the issue in the comments on this article over at my place:
http://drdawgsblawg.blogspot.com/2005/09/moral-idiocy-yesterday-lawyer-for.html
The Buddha, on torture:
“The Buddha�s teachings focus enormously on respect of human beings, saying that everyone can attain nibbaba, the highest level of spiritual development. He elaborated on precepts (sila) which make sure that for those who observe sila, their dignity is mutually respected, their personal behavior and social relationship remain peaceful and harmless.
He articulated that all human beings are entitled to be free from torture and murder, from stealing, from verbal and sexual abuse and from contamination of consciousness. After him, bhikkhu sangha – communities of the ordained Buddhists – have long been acting as voice of conscience for Buddhist societies. Sangha, with wisdom and compassion takes a role of counterbalance against an abuse of power so that societies would remain just and peaceful.”
http://www.sulak-sivaraksa.org/pub37.php
Hmmmm… Mohammed appears to have a different perspective on torture:
(Koran 69:30-37) “(It will be said) Take him and fetter him and expose him to hell fire. And then insert him in a chain whereof the length is seventy cubits. Lo! he used not to believe in God the tremendous, and urged not on the feeding of the wretched. Therefore hath he no lover hear this day nor any food save filth which none but sinners eat.”
“The above verses from the Koran prove that Muslims are specifically instructed not to tolerate unbelievers. It directly states that people who do not believe in Mohammed and the Islamic God are to be tortured and murdered.. Not only does this verse clearly implicate that unbelievers must be tortured and killed, it goes on further to state prescribed methods for committing torture. The horrific acts mentioned above are in practice even today in Islamic countries. In fact, in India, Muslims tortured the Sikh Gurus and their families exactly as prescribed by the Koran. For example, the Sikh guru Tegh Bahadur was imprisoned in a cage like a wild animal, when he refused to forsake his religion for Islam. Three of his disciples were murdered in front of his eyes. One of them was Bhai Mati Das. He was sawed alive into little pieces. The other was wrapped up in cotton and burnt alive. Bhai Dyala, the third one, was boiled alive in a cauldron. Guru Tegh Bahadur himself was brutally tortured and killed in a similar fashion. One wonders at the mercy of “The all beneficent Allah” who enjoys watching the roasted burnt flesh of hapless innocents falling off their bones”.
More:
Koran 8:12
Remember Thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): “I am with you: give firmness to the believers, I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips of them.”
“Here Mohammed is giving step by step instruction on how to torture and kill Kafirs if they don’t follow Islam.”
Koran 47:4
When you meet the unbelievers in the Jihad strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly. Then grant them their freedom or take ransom from them, until War shall lay down her burdens.
In the above verse, Mohammed is giving detailed instruction about how to maim and torture unbelievers in Jihad. And finally when the Muslims are satisfied enough after torturing and maiming the unbelievers, they should proceed to demand ransom for the captives. All for the sake for all-merciful Allah !!
Koran 5:33-34
The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet and alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom; Save those who repent before ye overpower them. For know that Allah is Forgiving, merciful.
In this verse, Mohammed devises another recipe for torturing unbelievers. This particular recipe involves chopping off alternate limbs and expelling the Kafirs (people following other religions) out of the land.
Torture is one thing. Agressive interogation, and most of what went on at Abu Graihb are not torture.
Torture cripples and kills – causes pain. The people in Abu Graihb – and that was stupid and I think more people should have been accountable – were not tortured by Americans – they were made to feel foolish and degraded.
The torture in Abu Graihb under Saddam was tongues cut out, rapes, limbs hacked off – torture. Is this video on the web anymore? Probably not.
Hmmm,torture,are long waits for medical care condidered torture?Is holding off treatment in a regional hospital till the patient dies of other infections torture?Is sending people long distances home hours after surgery torture?Is sending people home with such a terrible skin condition that they cant swallow and telling them that they have to take 100 pills a day torture?Well,this isnt what the US military is doing but its what our so called medical system does every day as I know people that the above happened to including my wife but some of our politicians call it not torture but the best system in the world.
Just a note on the Geneva Conventions – start by reading them. There are specific groundrules for military combatants to adhere to, involving the wearing of uniforms, answering to a higher command, etc.
Most of the combatants in Iraq were indeed illegal. One cannot violate the terms of the Conventions in the field, and then demand to be protected by them after capture.
Also, GWB did not stand on an aircraft carrier and declare the “war over”. He congratulated the crew on their mission. As for the war – he had repeatedly reminded Americans that it would be very long and very difficult.
I’d suggest you head over to http://www.ejectejecteject.com and read “Sanctuary” to understand why playing by the rules is fundamental to the Convention.
George: The US attacked Iraq because of Saddam’s behaviour, and yet we know from Abu Graib that they have committed the same atrocities themselves.
Because everyone knows that rape rooms, shredders and gassing of entire villages are exactly the same as laughing at someone’s genitals.
Here’s a hint – one was official state policy, the other was a few scum acting on their own and official state policy was to hold them to account because their behavior was unacceptable.
Yup, exactly the same thing.
VS Naipaul in his history of Trinidad relates how Trinidad was at one point governed by Britain but under Spanish law. The then colony in the early 19th century found itself dealing with the contradiction that under British law a slave’s testimony was presumed to be unreliable and therefore inadmissible if extracted by torture while under the Spanish law the slave’s testimony was held to be unreliable unless extracted by torture. Interrogators always face this dilemma. Without some degree of duress the reliability of the information would be highly suspect, without some degree of restraint the same difficulty applies. Get stuck straight into my teeth with a file and I’ll tell you everything I think you will believe. If I know you can’t hurt me I will tell you everything I think you will believe – just more quietly. I believe that is why developed systems of torture always exhibit some form of calculated restraint. Restraint is used to find a path between the two above extremes that leads to the prisoner breaking and telling the truth. Coercive duress of some form would seem to me to be a requirement if there is to be any effective interrogation. Yet prisoners must have some hope of recovery and survival if they tell the truth. It is the truth that any responsible professional interrogator is after – not revenge or sadistic pleasure. Define how far the interrogator can go precisely and publicly and a tremendous advantage is handed to the enemy. Set the threshold too low in defining torture and you remove the combat soldier’s motivation to take risks to capture prisoners. I don’t presume to know where the line is or even if it is effective or wise to set it by law. However, I am pretty sure that some unpleasantness is required.
Bush declares victory in Iraq
US President George W Bush has said the US has prevailed in the Battle of Iraq in a speech on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln.
He explicitly linked the conflict in the Gulf to the 11 September 2001 terror attacks on the United States.
He spoke of victories in Afghanistan, but warned that the al-Qaeda network was “wounded, not destroyed”.
“We will continue to hunt down the enemy before he can strike,” he told the cheering officers and sailors aboard the ship.
Mr Bush landed on the aircraft carrier in a small navy plane, making him the first sitting US president to take part in a so-called tailhook landing.
Earlier, Mr Bush’s spokesman Ari Fleischer warned that the president’s speech would not mark the end of hostilities “from a legal point of view”.
We have begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons, and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated
George W Bush
There are legal implications to declaring a war officially ended: under the Geneva Conventions, once war is declared over, the victorious army must release prisoners-of-war and halt operations targeting specific leaders.
The US is not prepared to do that, the BBC’s Matt Frei in Washington says.
The United States never formally declared war on Iraq.
In other developments:
The United Nations says it is re-establishing a permanent presence in Baghdad, as a senior humanitarian official arrives there
Key Iraqi political parties begin a series of meetings to discuss moves to set up an interim government
The US formally closes its operation mounted out of Turkey to monitor northern no-fly zone in Iraq
A veteran Danish diplomat is appointed post-war head of Basra province – one of four Iraqi administrative regions
A few hundred Iraqi communists take to the streets of Baghdad for the first time in decades to mark May Day
Mr Bush’s announcement was based upon an assessment given to him on Tuesday by General Tommy Franks, the top US military commander in the Gulf.
He said “difficult work” remained to be done in Iraq.
“We are pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We have begun a search for chemical and biological weapons, and already know hundreds of sites that will be investigated,” he said.
He linked the war in Iraq to the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
“The Battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on 11 September 2001, and still goes on,” he said.
‘Terrorists failed’
“By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed they could destroy this nation’s resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed,” he said to the cheers of the ship’s crew.
Mr Bush said that although the war on terror was still going on, it would not be endless.
“We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide… Free nations will press on to victory,” he said.
And he thanked the other nations that contributed troops to the US-led war, the UK, Australia and Poland.
The BBC’s Rob Watson in Washington says Thursday’s speech is probably as close as the president will ever get to saying that the war is over and won.
‘Thrilling ride’
Mr Bush arrived in a US navy jet on board the USS Abraham Lincoln, which is heading back home after 10 months of operations in the Gulf region.
The jet was caught on the carrier’s flight deck by a cable – a routine experience that sometimes can be stomach-churning.
For the flight Mr Bush – a former National Guard pilot – sat next to the pilot and emerged in full flight suit to shake hands with staff on the carrier deck.
With his helmet tucked under his arm, he told reporters he had taken the controls and enjoyed the flight.
“Of course I liked it, ” he said.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/2989459.stm
Published: 2003/05/02 10:16:09 GMT
� BBC MMV
I believe the intelligence community knows that the quality of information is inversely proportional to the brutality of the torture. If what you want is a confession, you will get it. If what you want is hard information that you can use reliably, more subtle approaches are required.
Injury does not yield hard information. It yields whatever answer causes it to stop.
We haven’t tried beheading yet. Maybe filling the streets with beheaded bodies would bring about peace. Or, we could just give the bastards what they want.
This is a fight, and we must win it. What do the moonbats think the world will be like if we just retreat? Silly idiots.
Spike:
The detainees in Guantanamo are getting better healthcare than the average Canadian taxpayer.
Greatest in the world indeed.
So far the socalled torture has consisted of female soldiers being in the same room as the prisoner as well as sleep depravation.
Sounds like my first marriage , poor bastards.
torture: what is it?
Andrew Sullivan et al want it to mean anything that makes anyone anywhere slightly uncomfortable. Well then fine.
Others want it to mean medieval practices such as the rack, removing fingernails with pliers, car batteries to the genitals… I’m one of these people.
What we must realize, however, is that we are facing an enemy that not only does not feel itself bound by rules, but that sneers at rules and views our adherence to rules as one of our weaknesses. They also demand that we play by the most circumscribed standards, so that it is easier for them to win.
The West should not do things that shock the conscience, but this is a proportionate rule. When we believe enough is at stake, we (pacificists and suicidal moralists not withstanding) have no problem in committing heinous acts: Dresden, Tokyo firebombing, Nagasaki, Hiroshima… We also should not do things that are counterproductive, and torture is frequently counterproductive, as the victim will say anything to end the pain. Abiding by the highest justice and morality is not called for. Rough men need to do rough things in the night, which may include having a woman control islamist prisoners, exploiting their religious beliefs and taboos, placing suspects under extreme stress… The constitutional framework works when dealing with mainstream citizens of western countries as they have much to lose taht police and prosecutors can threaten, which is their leverage. Dealing with terrorists is similar to, but dramatically harder than, pressuring disaffected youth (Clichy, Jane & Finch) or career criminals (Mafia, etc) who have no real bourgeois concerns with mainstream respectability, employability… Terrorists have specific levers, and being outside of our society are not vulnerable to “respectable” levers. So we need to use less respectable levers. We shouldn’t use ones that have a low truth probability (eletric gonads…) but should do things that shock and degrade the suspect by leveraging their taboos, beliefs,and customs.
I have to agree with Duke–living in a country with the likes of Hedy Fry, Svend Robinson and MJ is absolute TORTURE!!!
Seems the left has no sense of perspective; everything’s relative; torture is whatever a leftist deems it to be. Isn’t that true of the left?
I see folks discussing the humiliation of the murderous Islamofascist Jihadists at Abu Ghraib and see the left declaring it “torture”.
Then I recall the infamous hazing incident of the Canadian Airborne Regiment of the early Nineties which led to its disbanding. I actually saw the video footage uncut on CPAC of the hazing itself, and, folks, the stuff I saw makes the humiliating “softening-up” of the terrorists at Abu Ghraib look like a silly bachelor party stunt. The soldiers of the Airborne willingly put up with the hazing, which involved stuff a hundred times worse than we’ve seen on the “Fear Factor” reality TV show. It involved urine, crap and vomit. It involved far worse humiliation and brutally-inflicted pain that necessarily drew blood (slamming a badge, pin towards the soldier, really hard onto the chest) and some racially-oriented humiliation.
The Canadian warriors, whatever one thought of the hazing, took it without crying or complaining.
On the other hand, the simple “softening-up” via humiliation of the evildoers at Abu Ghraib is treated by the left as “torture” and it’s assumed the butcherous evildoers somehow “suffered”, that their human rights were violated. Bullshit! These evildoers don’t believe in human rights for anyone, not even themselves, besides, there was a war going on and what the hell do the leftist imbeciles expect? What’s their problem? They’re ignorant, that’s it… they don’t want to think critically and honestly for themselves, so they’ll believe what popular leftists, politicians, reporters and celebrities tell them instead.
Abu Ghraib was NOT torture. Get over it, lefties. Seriously!
Panty hats? Wearing a pair of panties as a hat is torture??? Well, then, I tortured myself by wearing a stripper’s panties on my head at a bachelor party. Yeah, right.
Jonah “gilled-supermen” Goldberg’s explanation for why he can�t be troubled with serving in Iraq:
As for why my sorry a** isn�t in the kill zone, lots of people think this is a searingly pertinent question. No answer I could give � I�m 35 years old, my family couldn�t afford the lost income, I have a baby daughter, my a** is, er, sorry, are a few � ever seem to suffice.
I completely disagree that Abu Ghraib was anything but a huge screw-up. Of course it got blown all out of proportion, but what would we expect to happen? There was a breakdown of discipline and process and it has been dealt with through the military justice system.
I disagree with the Administration on the torture ban and agree with McCain. Even if you don’t reject it out of hand on principle, there is no net gain to be had by allowing it. We cannot underestimate the value of the moral high ground.
Moral high ground is what allowed terror to flourish… after all, “morality” is in the eye of the beholder. The left has its own idea of morality and, during the Nineties, the left was in power and its morality was the rule of the day.
Then Saddam stayed in power, never obeying the now-worthless UN. And then came 9/11.
It’s pretty much the same old story as we saw with WWII. Pacifism allowed Hitler et al to amass his machine of destruction and domination and nearly take over the world and enslave or murder the whole planet’s population.
You’re wrong to contend there’s nothing to be gained from inflicting psychological discomfort upon evildoers to get information out of them for the purposes of more quickly putting an end to the current conflict and more quickly rounding up the enemy and preventing more evildoing.
The real problem with Abu Ghraib was a soldier or soldiers who took pictures and gave them to the media. Why do that? One must ask. War does stuff to people, one must realize. Besides, the gassing-to-death of thousands of innocent Kurds is far worse than humiliating evildoers…
Moral high ground isn’t a luxury we have in time of war. Pacifism could be considered as moral by some, but the real world doesn’t operate according to “morality”.
Torture??
sounds like they have to put a raid on every frat house or Rugby club house in the US to rid themselves of this.
Meanwhile back at the UN meeting on North Korea the delegates are busy ordering lunch and making plans for hooking up their Ipods to the translation headphones.