Smothering The Hearts and Minds
Let’s make sure we get this story right. You take the captured, uniformed general of an enemy army – and in blatant violation of all notions of human decency and of the Geneva Conventions— you beat him with rubber hoses, pour water down his nose, then stuff him into a sleeping bag, tie him with electrical cord, and then sit your ass down on his chest until he suffocates and you are convicted of what? “Negligent homicide?”
Just what part of this deliberate torture-onto-death is negligent? And your punishment? A “reprimand,” a $6000 fine and house detention for eight weeks?
So ruled a jury of six U.S. Army officers in the case of Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer Jr. much to the disgrace of our country, our people and, yes, the American armed forces. At least the Army had the basic humanity to put this torturer on trial for murder and demand life imprisonment. We were all dishonored, however, when the military jury let this guy off with just short of a back-slap and hand-shake. Says the L.A. Times:
The jury apparently agreed with defense arguments that Welshofer had believed he was following orders to use creative interrogation techniques when he put Iraqi Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush face-first in a sleeping bag, wrapped him in electrical wire and sat on his chest in November 2003. The 57-year-old general died after 20 minutes in the bag.
Smothering someone is now a “creative interrogation technique?” Does this not strike even the most conservative reader as rather grotesque?
Remember that the victim in this case, Iraqi General Abed Hamel Mowhoush was a top, uniformed officer of a recognized state-sponsored enemy army and not some “illegal combatant.” Worse, when Mowhoush was suffocated in November 2003, it was after he had voluntarily turned himself in to U.S. military authorities. At least, sort of voluntarily. Fact is, the General surrendered to American troops because they were holding his sons hostage – yet another stark violation of international law. One of those sons, who was 15 years old at the time of this outrage, recounted the grisly story to the Washington Post: Mohammed Mowhoush yesterday recalled his own arrest on Oct. 27, 2003, when he and his three brothers were taken from their Aim home as U.S. forces searched for his father. Mohammed, then 15, said U.S. troops arrived in the early morning darkness with helicopters and armored vehicles, and demanded to see his father.
"They said if my father did not come and give up, they will send us to Guantanamo," Mowhoush said, adding that he and his family had been observing Ramadan, but that his father was not home at the time. "That celebration turned into a real tragedy for us. They said if my father does not come, you will never see your family back." Arresting someone to entice relatives to turn themselves in is considered by human rights organizations to be a form of hostage-taking. It is considered illegal in wartime but military investigative documents reveal it has occurred in Iraq. Mowhoush said he and his brothers were taken into custody and interrogated for days, with U.S. officials accusing them of carrying out roles in the insurgency. He said he was told they believed he was a sniper, though he said he knew nothing about the war. He and his brothers were not charged with crimes. Mowhoush said U.S. troops took his clothes off, poured cold water on him, beat him, and made him get into uncomfortable and painful "stress positions," as they are known in the military. His father later surrendered in an attempt to free his sons, according to classified documents. The military began to use the sons against the general, Mohammed Mowhoush said. After about 28 days in prison, the younger Mowhoush said, the Army brought the general to an old train depot outside of Qaim -- a temporary detention facility nicknamed "Blacksmith Hotel" -- to pressure him to talk. "He was tired and I saw wounds on his body, and he was tired because they hit him so much, they made a lot of pain on him and he couldn't even talk to me," Mowhoush said, describing how he was briefly reunited with his father. It was about that time that Abed Mowhoush had been beaten by Iraqi paramilitaries code-named "Scorpions," who were working with the CIA, according to classified documents. Mohammed Mowhoush said he saw some masked Iraqis at the prison, and said at one point they escorted him into a room near where his father was being interrogated. He said they yelled at his father and told him that if he did not tell the truth, they would execute his son." We pick up the narrative from the L.A. Times report: Witnesses testified that Welshofer stood by while Iraqi nationals, reportedly in the employ of the CIA, beat the general for about 30 minutes with rubber hoses. The next day, Welshofer took the general to the roof of the prison and, while other soldiers held him down, poured water on his face. The general did not answer questions, so the following morning Welshofer turned to what was dubbed "the sleeping bag technique." Invented by another interrogator who recalled how his older brother used to stuff him in a sleeping bag to induce claustrophobia, the technique had been approved by Welshofer's supervisor. The day after the general's death, prosecutors said, Welshofer asked for another sleeping bag so he could continue using the technique on others. Can anyone read this and not feel utter disgust? This is our refined and sophisticated manner of extracting intelligence? Holding 15 year olds hostage and then smothering their fathers in sleeping bags? And then publicly acquitting the guilty? This is how we win the hearts and minds of our potential adversaries? Heaven help us.
January 25th, 2006 at 1:19 am
Only a naive liberal expects the US military to win the hearts and minds of a country that it has illegally and immorally occupied.
January 25th, 2006 at 3:07 am
As someone who supported the Iraqi invasion as the lesser of several evils, incidents like this as what makes me feel like throwing in the towel and jumping in with the Stopper crowd. Not only was this guy’s methods approved, but when he eventually killed someone (like, duh, what were the odds of an elderly man dying due to suffocation and crushing, dude) he gets a fine! At the very least, he should be serving a manslaughter term, and there should be an investigation into these practises. At the very least.
P.
http://oceanclub.blogspot.com
January 25th, 2006 at 4:12 am
This is torture; it is terrible.
I am really sad; the punishment seems too light; but the sadness is for the American troops.
I really wish there were more videotapes of how Saddam treated prisoners being released, and how many Iraqis were killed by his regime. If this was a general, he was most likely as guilty as one of Hitler’s generals — not innocent.
All countries should be judged by the SAME standard, and that should be: no torture. Every failure should be punished. I’m glad the US found him guilty. I thought that OJ was guilty, too, and that his punishment was far too light.
It seems unlikely that the purpose, the intent, was to kill the general. It seems the purpose was to get info. The purpose of getting info is to stop Saddam’s army, which had not “surrendered”, from continuing its fight against America, and continuing to kill Americans.
It’s not as bad as the fire-bombing of Dresden; nor of My Lai.
Nor is it as bad as the US non-action in the Rwanda genocide, nor the US/ UN/ EU “acceptance” of current genocide in Darfur.
It sure seems like a stupid, brutal, and under-trained way of interrogation — instead of long sessions of sleep deprivation and multiple videotaped interrogations. I think “more troops” would have had more such undertrained revenge interrogations.
To the inevitable “we are no better than Saddam”, I say bull-pucky. American soldiers are, on average, the best in the world — but STILL imperfect. Judging every American violation as proof of systematic immorality, against an Unreal Perfection standard, is mostly posturing.
Killing some of the innocent; and torturing/ revenge killing some of the guilty, is inevitable in any war where your side is suffering casualties. Good reasons to avoid war.
But when the choice is war or genocide; war or acceptance of a Saddam whose regime tortures as policy; I support war.
Knowing the war will have cases such as this. I would have preferred a US response to Rwanda, including 3 000 American soldiers dying for (not completely innocent) Tutsi freedom and protection, and even including some dozens of torture like incidents such as above.
It is naive to believe that justice can occur through only peaceful means; or that non-peaceful means of enforcing justice will always be just.
It’s torture; it’s wrong. It should be stopped. It should be stopped even when Saddam was doing it — I’m glad the US stopped Saddam.
January 25th, 2006 at 5:03 am
Marc’s post speaks for itself. Only tangentially related, but this story on the systematic squandering of “reconstruction funds” in Iraq also blew my mind on the level of “Who the fuck is in charge of this shit and what are they thinking ?” I think anybody who argues that the unique combination of arrogance and incompetence demonstrated by this administration - and not just in Iraq - are merely some form of “collateral damage” for supposedly doing “the right thing” doesn’t give much of a shit about this country anymore and is obviously willing to tolerate damn near any outrage in the course of rationalizing their partisan politics and demonizing the critics.
http://tinyurl.com/87o2z
January 25th, 2006 at 7:16 am
There’s no justification for homicide, but, once again, the outrage and focus from the left is against the U.S.–rarely against the real terrorists and our enemies. The outrage is not to make a better America but to tear down our missions and credibility. It’s no wonder that many of us ponder if the left celebrates at every American failure and at every success of those we fight. Whose side are they on? Why do they do this?
January 25th, 2006 at 7:48 am
There’s no justification for homicide, but, once again, the outrage and focus from the left is against the U.S.–rarely against the real terrorists and our enemies.
Rubbish. Check my blog, you’ll see in the past I’ve supported the war and condemned people like Galloway and Chomsky who have tried to explain away Saddam’s actions and condemn intervention. Does that mean I now have to now support torture and tactics that are guaranteed to cause a backlash? At what point am I allowed to condemn torture?
The point being, it’s the very people who supported the war for moral justification who should be condemning this behaviour the most.
P.
January 25th, 2006 at 8:18 am
Woody, silence in the face of this crime is absolutely incompatible with the principles that this country is founded on. Shame on you!
January 25th, 2006 at 8:23 am
” tear down our missions and credibility” .
Its actions such as these that destroy our credibility.
January 25th, 2006 at 9:07 am
Woody is a typical sheep: my country right or wrong. We on the so-called left want our country to be right in its actions. This is more evidence we aren’t. When you stoop to the level of your enemies the difference is blurred, and possibly reversed. Where was Reagan when Saddam slaughtered his people in the early ’80s? He watched and turned away.
January 25th, 2006 at 9:17 am
Everyday the outrages committed under this administration mount exponentially. What is the famous quote from Walt Kelly via Pogo, “We have met the enemy and he is us.” When George Bush looks in the mirror he sees Saddam Hussein and admires what he sees.
January 25th, 2006 at 9:53 am
I couldn’t have asked for a more perfect “Woody comment” to follow mine. Thank you, Woodman…
Paul M…I didn’t support the war, although I didn’t reject it out of hand until I’d done some thinking and investigation on the issue and once it was a fait accompli I hoped for the best and was at least glad to see Saddam fall…but had I been on board philosophically or pragmatically (as opposed to being a Bushnik partisan sheep), I think it’s probable I would be even more outraged at the war’s conduct than I am (which is considerable).
January 25th, 2006 at 10:21 am
“I really wish there were more videotapes of how Saddam treated prisoners being released, and how many Iraqis were killed by his regime. If this was a general, he was most likely as guilty as one of Hitler’s generals — not innocent.â€
“There’s no justification for homicide, but, once again, the outrage and focus from the left is against the U.S.–rarely against the real terrorists and our enemies.â€
Isn’t this kind of crap the very essence of “moral equivalence.†Truly Woody, sometimes you personify the banality of evil.
January 25th, 2006 at 11:51 am
Excellent post, Marc.
Woody, if you live in a city, and one of your local police officers gets caught dead bang for torturing and killing somebody, you don’t—at that point—start shrieking about why we oughta instead be mad at all the criminals in the city, and then carry on about how outrage at the bad/illegal/immoral/unconstitutional cop behavior is anti-law enforcement, anti-law, pro-crime. This is a logic-free response.
Reg, glad you brought up the Iraq misuse of funds/fraud/theft/psychotic-level-mismanagement story. I’d just been reading it myself. Yipes!
January 25th, 2006 at 11:54 am
Woody, I can only hope for your sake that you’re smiling to yourself, and earning a small stipend from Marc as the silly anti-lefty commentator–kind of like a court jester of sorts. It’s definitely funny, I’ll grant that. I sure hope you’re not serious, though, or else, well, I’m worried that you’ve been hitting the accounting books too hard (it’s that time of year for y’all…). Of course, if you are serious, I’d love to get my hands on your trusty Left-o’-meter, which, when placed atop one’s abode like a satellite dish, can detect and register an accurate reading of the level of Left outrage at any given moment. If I had one of those, I could make sure I was properly pwogwessively barometerized at all times. It’s gotta be on EBay…
January 25th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
Woody, I am always amazed at the way you walk straight into the whirling blades with some of your comments! I am sure you mean well, but next time just try for fun to see if you can respond without doing your typical “oh there goes the left again” bit. You did that nicely when you opposed the NSA spying without warrants, didn’t that make you feel better about yourself?
On the topic: Perhaps those of us on both the right and the left have to face up to the possibility that torture and murder are not just anomalies carried out by a few soldiers or sanctioned by a few generals and defense secretaries, but part of who many Americans really are under their skins. Otherwise there would be much more of an outcry about it from the “average” American than there is–too many among us still think this is perfectly fine, and that includes a few commentators above.
January 25th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
Woody’s and Liberty Dad’s point in saying this sort of stuff is inevitable in war is not to excuse it, but to point out that its existence is not prima facie evidence of the lack of morality in the war itself.
Yet it seems to get used that way by war opponents, which can be annoying.
I suspect this sort of things adds, for the opponents, to a whole pile of W’s moral outrages, and so for them the pattern just gets proven; but for people who don’t share all their assumptions the pile of outrages isn’t anywhere near as big or convincing.
Engaging that debate doesn’t mean a person thinks the action isn’t an outrage. That’s a separate topic.
January 25th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
As to Michael Balter’s comment, i am still suffering from a large unclearness on what exactly has been done by whom and really how frequently and in what context. I have not been totally vigilant in keeping myself up to date on it.
The political issue “we are all killers in this country” seems like a winner, though.
January 25th, 2006 at 1:36 pm
And their you have it: moral relativism and equivalency. Paul dwells on this on every issue. One man’s mountain is another’s molehill, hence let the shillery go forth.
January 25th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
Any country that doesn’t endorse torture wouldn’t make a hit-show out of “24″ or the myriad rogue-cop-as-hero television shows and films. Torture and revenge are as American as apple pie.
January 25th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
Woody is the sitcom character we postulated on the other thread, a court jester Archie Bunker whose stereopypical prejudices rave on oblivious to the lack of content and originality contained therein. Like a cardboard cut-out with five cut-and-paste slogans applicable to anything. I would characterize most of the “right” that way. Most, luckily not all.
January 25th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
Shillery is everywhere. You have to turn the kaleidoscope back and forth. An intelligent person does that from time to time, and checks himself for shills.
January 25th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
Oh and also: huh?
January 25th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
Mini Paul, you are simply wrong. Woody and Grey’s purpose is to excuse torture as a part of a just fight against an evil enemy. Otherwise you say things like, “I’m outraged that this sort of awful behavior is distracting from the important fight against terror. It is imperative that we make sure this kind of behavior stops immediatly and fight this war properly and honorably.” Instead, we get accusations that torture-objectors are really supporters of the terrorists.
January 25th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
I shouldn’t speak for them of course. But to my eyes they do express outrage, or anger, or sincere-seeming statements that this doesn’t help, although sometimes they do wonder if every outrage is as purely outrageous as everyone says, which is not an inherently illegitmate question, speaking generally.
But they’re talking about it in the context of the larger political debate that goes on. Even the purest outrage does not preclude that angle.
January 25th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
Of course a whole other angle on the topic is that given that this stuff is inevitable, it redoubles the W’s moral failure if any in not taking the decision seriously enough.
I think it’s possible to respond to that with, “How do you know he didn’t take it seriously enough?” But there is circumstantial evidence that he didn’t simply in the way he slighted the need to unify the country behind it.
January 25th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
“But they’re talking about it in the context of the larger political debate that goes on. Even the purest outrage does not preclude that angle.”
Yes, I’m sure that’s exactly what you said after 9/11, when America-haters everywhere mocked the dead by deigning to fathom terrorist motives.
January 25th, 2006 at 2:33 pm
Close bu mayb eonly half a cigar, Rich. “Purest outrage” int the context of today’s topic is a different level of purest outrage.
Although I’ve never been one to say it’s ridiculous to try to undestand their motives. I just resist the idea of letting that lead you away form remembering the pure evil of the act and the need to resist the pepetrators with all appropriate energy, a statement you would also apply here I would guess.
January 25th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
Paul from Ireland made a clear distinction that Paul from Minneapolis just doesn’t seem to get. Apologetics for the strange combination of vacuity and viciousness demonstrated by Woody in characterizing critics of this stuff is…well…stupid.
Also, to characterize Michael Balter’s ruminations on what I would construe as our country’s soul - whether one wholly agrees with his conclusions or not - as a “political” prescription is, again, to wildly miss the point.
Anyone who doesn’t periodically stop and think about where some aspects of our increasingly innured-to-violence culture might be leading is blind where it most counts. (And I say this as a die-hard “24″ fan, but not necessarily a shameless one.)
This issue should have nothing to do with politics - unless all conservatives really are as sanguine about this stuff as Woody. (I believe John McCain proves that this isn’t true, but I still worry about that one.)
January 25th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
I’m not actually that familiar with “Woody” as a general phenomenon, but his one brief post in this string seems to be straightforwardly saying what I was laying out in a little more detail later on, when I was trying to dissect the prisms the issue’s viewed through. I don’t think his specific post reaches heights of vacuity and viciousness. it’s brief, sometimes brief can come across harsh.
January 25th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
No shills in my pocket. My positions have been firm all the way through. You may not intend this, but you speak for Woody and Grey and others on the far right-wing, insofar as you defend their dismissal of US torture as a necessary tactic and the up-is-downism of attacking the messenger for reporting it. Just as with Abu Ghraib “There they go again always pointing out the bad stuff.” If only theu would just shut-up and let us have our moral fantasy. It’s shallow, disingenuous and callous. Intellegent people don’t want that tag. Look for more of this in the SOU. It’s a classic tactic.
January 25th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
Sez Woody:
There’s no justification for homicide, but…
Ah yes, the “but”, which belies the first part of the sentence.
January 25th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Paul go back and review Woody’s comments in totality. Better yet go to Roper’s and read the original thoughts. You’ll get the idea. Or maybe not.
January 25th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
Mark, I think you’re straining their words through your lens and filter. They don’t consider the Iraq War, for example, to be a simple moral fantasy. Obviously, I guess, but mabe you’re making a contextual leap in order to “prove” the moral emptiness of their words.
January 25th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
It’s simple and we make it complicated. Are we the kind of country who condones this or condemns it? Yes, crimes in war are inevitable–soldiers will get carried away, the CIA will be, well, the CIA. Paul Fussell is good on this in sections of Doing Battle where he descirbes the revenge American soldiers would exact on the Germans. But even that sort of behavior differs in kind from what we’re discussing here.
Woody wants to obfuscate this, as does Paul to some extent. Reread what actually happened to this general, or rather, what was done to him. He is deliberately made to feel as if he is dying, and in this case he did die. Is this OK or not? No pansy bullshit about not condemning the beheaders enough, or how the left wants to tear down freedom. Is it OK or not OK? It’s a simple question. (Rosedog illustrates this point beautifully).
We can always use the “shit happens” excuse, because it does. But when it does, is anyone held accountable? Woody, when we find the beheaders we blow the shit out of them, and rightly so, and there is a kind of accountability there, no? Here we put this guy on trial (a triumph for the rule of law), and then scold him and send him to his room which can only be counted a failure. It’s a failure of the law as much as it’s a failure of message to the rest of the world. And to answer Marc’s question it does disgust me. Bush could easily say we don’t condone torture (or murder) and those found to have done it will end up in prison. But the law means nothing to him except as an expedient.
January 25th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
Nice dodge, Paul. I’m glad you’ve found another meter I can start using: the “outrage-o’-meter”. Today’s outrage level is partly cloudy with a chance of pure outrage, tempered by “different contexts” and a 15% chance of a Hitchens column to tell me how to think next.
Look, Paul, let’s be frank here. I was raised in a very religious, Catholic environment. I was taught to both A) express rage at injustices, and B) seek to understand (and change) what is behind them. Both. Which is why your odd crusade to help the left psychoanalyze its supposed America-hating condition is, for me, rather ridiculous. I don’t use an America litmus test, or a GOP litmus test, or a DFL litmus test to respond to the world around me. What you’re seeing in responses like Woody’s and Tom’s are simply the flip side of those libbie scum who want to play politics with moral outrage. And, ironically, in what appear to be your attempts to serve as a moral beacon for those of us who feel outrage (i.e., “don’t feel too much outrage relative to your outrage in terms of the bigger political picture”.. sound familiar?). I find that amusing. For awhile. Then… boring. Maybe even ultimately dangerous, but I have other things to worry about.
In sum, it’s refreshing to read comments from people like Balter and Cooper who are consistently sounding the alarm on moral outrages, be they by Cubans or Iraqis or Americans. It’s equally telling when someone starts backpedalling to excuse–er, sorry, “contextualize”–the reprehensible acts in some larger picture.
January 25th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Why does Cooper expect that an occupation being carried out illegally and against the will of a nation of people should be done with consideration of human rights? And he really thinks that is possible? Is this ignorance or just wishful thinking?
January 25th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
I agree with all that, Dan O. That’s a given. Shit happens isn’t an excuse for the act. With the one caveat that i won’t automatically accept that this one case proves something about how common equally or nearly so outrageous acts have been.
It does give you pause, though, circumstantially again, that the punishment is light. That may be a clue on the common-ness issue.
January 25th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
Rich, my Topic is the state of our politics. I see the left unprecedentedly (for the left) and dangerously dominated by rage and dishonesty. Speaking of obvious, that seems obvious to me; and what also seems obvious to me is that the typical response is to say that none of that matters in light of the horrors of the right. It’s dark even to bring up, in light of the horrors of the right.
Horrors which are very, very often - not always, but often - described dishonestly.
That’s what seems dangerous to me. The times demand we all be as honest with ourselves as possible. The left has waded into the post-9-11 context wiht an ever-increasing certainty that it doesn’t need to examine itself.
The “tell me what to think next” insult is beneath you, I thought. And easily returned.
January 25th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
In response to Marc’s post on this, Woody writes, “The outrage is not to make a better America but to tear down our missions and credibility. It’s no wonder that many of us ponder if the left celebrates at every American failure and at every success of those we fight. Whose side are they on? Why do they do this?”
There were only a four comments up at the time, two by war supporters, one by “Steve” attacking Marc and one brief one by me that simply gave Marc an “Amen”, linked to an OT Times article on an official government report about how horribly mismanaged the Iraqi “reconstruction” has been and criticized apologists for this stuff. So, yes, Woody was vacuous and, certainly by his implication of treasonous attitudes in, presumably, the expressions by Marc, pro-war Paul from Ireland and me, he was indeed vicious. Or simply stupid and unhinged. Take your pick. Yahoo morons like Woody can go fuck themselves. That’s really the level of discourse his comments deserve. He proved the rather harsh point I made…that these folks care more about tending their partisan preserve and defending the administration, no matter how bad things go, than any consideration of the good of the country.
January 25th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
Hey Marc, way to enforce that ‘no monopolizing the board’ rule…That Paul from Minneapolis is a model of self-restrain, I can see why Steve’s ‘monopolizing’ was so upsetting to you. LOL.
January 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Point taken. But people keep responding! Directly! What can a poor boy do?
January 25th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
In Woody’s defense, I do have to say I’m impressed that the GM’s Corner website where he regularly hangs his hate…I mean hat…is today featuring the patriotic poetic expression of one of those anti-Iraq-war celebrities. So maybe these characters aren’t quite as constricted and blindered as I often assume.
(Ref: From an article in today’s SF Chronicle. - “…many supposedly religious people sent [Rosanne] Cash angry mail after she spoke out against the Iraq war. Your God-fearing daddy would be ashamed, they wrote, ‘not realizing that he was as opposed to it as I was,’ she said.” )
January 25th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
“that the typical response is to say that none of that matters in light of the horrors of the right”
Except that no one here has said that. Which means such a comment is apropros of nothing–or, more likely, a projection of your Uptown battles with the left.
As far as insulting–Paul, please. I think you have good intentions, but taking the tone that your interlocutors are deluded propagandists who need nuanced (and hypocritical–see my early comment) moral guidance at how to respond to injustice is in the first chapter of my dog-eared copy of “How to Insult–the Subtle Way!” Thanks, but no thanks.
January 25th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
I’d say that one man getting a fine and house arrest for homocide makes your claim irrelevent.
Obviously there must have been a justification for it. Right?
January 25th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
But Paul, it’s more than the one incident. There was Abu Ghraib. There have been numerous reports and conversations about interrogation methodoligies whose promulgation have been coming from some far north point on the ladder of authority. There is the general lawlessness of holding prisoners in Cuba. There are the renditions. The secret flights to secret bases in Europe.
Your points would be well taken if this was the only example. There is a lot more smoke than just this example admits. There seems to be a pattern, and while not all of the examples I cite are necessarily indicative of tourture, they paint a disturbing backdrop to the topic at hand.
January 25th, 2006 at 3:50 pm
Rick, why do you assume I’m talking to you when you perceive an insult?
Yet I am pretty insulting of “the left” in general. Yes. it can’t be denied. I try to keep it in the 3rd person but maybe that comes across sneaky.
I am far from alone in these perceptions; the only thing that makes me unusual is my sporadic Ahab-like need to directly address the whale. Believe me, it’s way more comfortable hanging out with the hordes of people who share these views, the ones the left tends to dismiss out of hand as unworthy of attention.
I’ll go back there now.
January 25th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
dizzy deen: “Why does Cooper expect that an occupation being carried out illegally and against the will of a nation of people should be done with consideration of human rights? And he really thinks that is possible? Is this ignorance or just wishful thinking?”
Steve, don’t you find it disconcerting that your posts are so easy to spot? I mean, your link to that “debunking” of the spat-on vets “myth” almost reaches self-parody in its irrelevance.
January 25th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
“my sporadic Ahab-like need to directly address the whale.”
Didn’t Ahab’s fixation say a lot more about him than it said about the whale.
January 25th, 2006 at 4:11 pm
(my last comment–sorry for the over-abundance)
Paul, I tried to level with you, but you’d rather be cute. Fine. I don’t find it productive, but, your choice. I do find it funny, though, the way you subtly identify yourself with “the hordes”–a nice sneaky way of making yourself one of the down-homers, ridiculed by the snobbish left. Whatever you need your narrative to be to give your life meaning, dude–all the power to you. Except it’s just that: your narrative. My roots are in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, where there are hordes and hordes of us Christian lefties!
In other words, your “direct addressing” is way off.
January 25th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
Paul, this answers - at least in part - some questions you asked recently on another thread. (Also reflects poorly on the “MSM” and John McCain, but that’s not why I linked it.)
http://mediamatters.org/items/200601250005
January 25th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
This post of Marc’s is now linked as Kevin Drum’s main piece on the issue.
January 25th, 2006 at 4:57 pm
Did someone mention my name?
rosedog, your example of police brutality doesn’t answer my question. Certainly, as with this, I condemn any police action that is illegal. There are ways to deal with that, and those ways were applied. However, I don’t broadbrush all military and U.S. acitivities as evil based upon isolated incidents. I can look at our enemies and see that they are where our focus should be applied. Yet, the left rarely does.
The left is back to its old tricks of the 1960s, but they are a little more sophisticated today. In the 1960s, all authority was bad. Military was evil. All police were bad. The ’60s radicals would scream “PIG” at policemen at every opportunity and cause civil disturbances. Offices of college deans were taken over. Draft cards were burned. Bras, too. (That part was okay.)
Frankly, it comes down to maturity and respect for authority. The left acts immature and has little or no respect for authority, as it always has. But, Woodstock is over and it’s time to join the human race. It’s time to focus on our enemies for the first time for many of you.
The commenters attacking me and my question may possibly divert the focus from the left, but it leaves my impressions the same about that side–and, those impressions are dead-on correct.
January 25th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
DC asked:
“Steve, don’t you find it disconcerting that your posts are so easy to spot? I mean, your link to that “debunking†of the spat-on vets “myth†almost reaches self-parody in its irrelevance.â€
I think you’ve been drinking too much of Marc’s kool-aid DC, who said I was trying to hide my identity? I mean, if I were trying to hide it why would I provide obvious clues?
Now, on the spat on issue…gimme a break, Cooper interviewed the guy who is ’supposedly’ disproving the myth. Now he buys into it for some reason, maybe because it makes him more palatable to people who believe the myth. Or maybe because he has recovered a long repressed memory of seeing people throw urine on vets or feces? Or thrust swords through their thighs? Or [fill in the blank].
January 25th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Do you remember what Colin Powell told the world in May 2004, after the Abu Graib revelations? Here’s Powells speech:
“Watch America. Watch how we deal with this. Watch how America will do the right thing. Watch what a nation of values and character, a nation that believes in justice, does to right this kind of wrong. Watch how a nation such as ours will not tolerate such actions. I told them that they will see a free press and an independent Congress at work. They will see a Defense Department, led by Secretary Rumsfeld, that will launch multiple investigations to get to the facts. Above all, they will see a president — our president, President Bush — determined to find out where responsibility and accountability lie. And justice will be done. The world will see that we are still a nation with a moral code that defines our national character.”
If only.
January 25th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
Woody, they took over Deans offices? My god, how did the country ever survive such chaos???? I mean, wow, that’s heavy duty stuff for a democratic country.
nowadays, kids can be more like brittany spears, civil and PATRIOTIC!!
January 25th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Oh yes, P.S. to Rich: Marc’s stipend to me is the same as the one paid to me by G.M. They collect money while I give away junk. As Navin Johnson says, “It’s a profit deal!”
Yes, the secret “Left-o’-meter” (by Ronco) really exists, but it’s safely hidden from the left, because it’s only found at non-union WalMarts. It detects them by using the special tracking tags on welfare checks.
————
Billy Bean, our country survived ’60s civil unrest on campuses by moves such as Ronald Reagan tossing campus radicals out of state colleges. I actually know someone to whom this happened.
January 25th, 2006 at 5:56 pm
Once more, Woody breathes fire into his echo chamber and - Voila! - an army of straw men, including the entire population of Woodstock Nation, circa 1969, burst into flames. Awesome…
January 25th, 2006 at 6:01 pm
My wingnutometer is ringing off the wall. Respect for authority? How Stalinesque. We are the authority in a Democratic republic, or didn’t get that class?
January 25th, 2006 at 6:04 pm
It’s a virtual Burning [Straw] Man , reg.
January 25th, 2006 at 6:13 pm
Uncle Sam or Marquis de Sade?
There are many ways that torture can be implemented to a captive, one of the more popular methods is known as waterboarding. The word sounds like sports activity but it is far from fun. It is a FORM OF MEDIEVAL TORTURE CURRENTLY USED BY OUR GOVERNMENT. It involves tying the victim to a board with his head lower than his feet so that he or she is unable to move. A piece of cloth is held tightly over the face, and water is poured onto the cloth. Breathing is extremely difficult and the victim will be in fear of imminent death by asphyxiation. However, it is relatively difficult to aspirate a large amount of water since the lungs are higher than the mouth, and the victim is unlikely actually to die if this is done by SKILLED torturers.
Waterboarding is often used by torturers who wish to impose severe suffering without leaving marks on their victims as evidence.
Some other forms of torture are: ATTENTION GRAB; ATTENTION SLAP; BELLY SLAP; LONG TIME STANDING AND COLD CELL. The CIA does not refer to these activities as torture they call them ENHANCED INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES.
The Cold Cell enhanced technique, requires a prisoner to stand naked in a 50 degree cell and is continually doused with cold water. Whereas, the Long Time standing enhanced technique, forces the captive to stand handcuffed and shackled for more than 40 hours, and the Belly Slap delivers a hard open handed slap to the stomach intended to cause severe pain.
“One Man’s Terrorist Is another Man’s Freedom Fighter”
We cannot demonize someone by calling them a terrorist and then commit atrocities in the name of democracy.
By invading and occupying a country we have created insurgents that we now define as terrorists. How would any of us react if our country was invaded and occupied by a foreign government? Would we passively submit, or would we have the courage to fight back.
Would WE then be defined as terrorists? Have we demonized, objectified and dehumanized resisters by calling them terrorists. And if that kind of propaganda allows us to torture and kill Iraqis, what will prevent the same propaganda from then being used against anyone who is labeled a threat?
Will U.S. citizens be abducted and tortured, if someone decides to label them a terrorist?
If we allow our government to have free reign to beat, torture and abduct captives internationally, we are paving the way for the possibility of similar treatment to be imposed on U.S. citizens.
Sociologists use the term Elite Deviance, to describe persons and organizations in a culture that possess the highest social status, and have the power to systematically exploit the powerless by economic domination, denial of human rights, and governmental control. This deviant behavior causes injury, devastation, huge monetary losses, and ultimately undermines public trust in political and economic institutions.
Can it be that the CEOS running the oil companies and the politicians controlling our government are inflicted with this deviant behavior? Or to put it simply, maybe they are just a bunch of THUGS.
PROSPERITY GOSPEL: WHAT GOD DO THEY WORSHIP?
White House staffers have been meeting weekly at hour-long prayer and Bible study sessions. Bush aides organized the sessions before his inauguration. What God are they really praying to? Are they praying to a God that advocates invasion, destruction and the annihilation of 120,000 Iraqi civilians? Are they praying to a God that allows 37 million Americans to live in poverty? Are they praying to a God that accepts no health-care for 45 million Americans? Are they praying to god that permits corporations to swindle people out of their homes using the questionable Supreme Court ruling, Eminent Domain? Are they praying to a God that says it’s fine to leave people homeless and desperate in the Gulf Coast? Are they praying to a God that says it is morally correct to give tax cuts to the rich and powerful, and to cut programs for the poor? Are they praying to a God that says execution and Capital Punishment is tolerable? Are they praying to a God that says human rights are not important and that it is acceptable to abduct torture and throw into prison captives, without allowing them due process? Exactly what god, can they be praying to at the White House?
January 25th, 2006 at 7:06 pm
“Where was Reagan when Saddam slaughtered his people in the early ’80s? He watched and turned away.”
Hussein is indeed a tyrant, York. And the U.S. appropriated 40 billion dollars to Saddam Hussein to help him in carrying out very hideous crimes against the human race.
But York, guess which party controlled the U.S. Congress that appropriated this money to Saddam Hussein, despite knowing about his history of bloodshed? That’s right, people, the Democratic Party…although it should be said that not all Democrats supported Hussein or these appropriations (Al Gore, in fact, was one of the first and few Senators to speak out against giving money to Saddam Hussein).
And while we are on the subject of torture…why is it that so many dovish people on here act like this is a new phenomenon?
Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, El Salvador, Nicauragua,…the Democratic Party had a chance to address torture, to banish this cruel practice once and for all when it controlled congress for several decades.
I am almost as upset with the Democratic Party establishment of the 1980’s as I am with Ronald Reagan for what happened. But what makes me most infuriated is that so many Democrats do not make this a big issue because they are scared of being labeled as “soft on terrorism.” It is sad that it took John McCain to initiate any kind of major progressive action in this respect in the Congress.
January 25th, 2006 at 7:10 pm
Well stated, John.
January 25th, 2006 at 7:28 pm
John, you mean like the Democratic Congress which banned aid to the Contras which a Republican President’s cabal circumvented? (Not that the ban was a ban on torture precisely, but it was prompted by the hideous record of a hideous group).
But I find this finger pointing about the parties a bit banal. Perhaps we have never had the need to ban it (banned as it is in the Constitution in any case), because it has not been the official policy of an Administration as it is now. It is indeed unprecedented for it to receive the sanction of authority as it semi-officially has.
January 25th, 2006 at 7:32 pm
Damn,
Woody, Liberty Dad and Paul from Mpls are real fascist.
Lord, real live fascist!
All morality and ethics are relative to the right-wing party and it’s “born-again†Alpha-Male.
January 25th, 2006 at 8:04 pm
“Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, El Salvador, Nicauragua,…the Democratic Party had a chance to address torture, to banish this cruel practice once and for all when it controlled congress for several decades.”
AND THAT IS WHY BEING A LIBERAL IN AN ILLUSIONARY TWO PARTY SYSTEM DOES NOT WORK! IT’S ONE BIG PARTY WHEN IT COMES TO GREED. AND THE POOR OF THE WORLD ARE NOT INVITED.
January 25th, 2006 at 8:18 pm
Well, we know what happens when powerful popular presidents want things from Congrees don’t we, Steele? They tend to defer across party lines making your insinuation sort of devoid of actual value. Except the cudos to Al Gore for not being onboard, more evidence of his value to our country all the more pertinent now as then.
January 25th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
Plural Neo. Plural.
January 25th, 2006 at 8:29 pm
There’s a one word response to that, and I think it’s appropriate to mention it before I close up for the night. In fact, it’s required to be mentioned at each post. Here it is….Chappaquiddick. I couldn’t disappoint any of you by not mentioning it, no matter how unrelated.
January 25th, 2006 at 8:31 pm
“What God are they really praying to?”
“Both sides claim God is on their side, but one has to be wrong?” Abraham Lincoln.
Or both.
January 25th, 2006 at 8:37 pm
Woody, how kind of you to add yet another irrelavant citation. The human cliche machine stikes again. Let me translate: Kennedy is a murderer, hence Democrats are all murderers and hypocrites for allowing this dichotomy to exist. Of course neither is actually true. Terrible accidents are not murder, but deliberate torture leading to death sure is. Can ad hominem attacks win? Stay tuned. The wayback machine is fired up and at the ready.
January 25th, 2006 at 10:06 pm
The outrage is not to make a better America but to tear down our missions and credibility. It’s no wonder that many of us ponder if the left celebrates at every American failure and at every success of those we fight. Whose side are they on? Why do they do this?
What I really admire about Woody is his self-proclaimed omniscience. Only Woody and his brethren know what is in the hearts of us lefties!
Excuse me, but I have to help a gay friend go force some Southern Baptist kindergarten students to watch Brokeback Mountain followed by a singalong to his collection of Judy Garland records.
Tomorrow I’m going to secretly harvest some stem cells and in the evening I’m going to have drinks with Saddam’s daughters, then we’re going to find some Church of Christ kindergarteners who we’re going to force to sit through a marathon reading of the Origin of Species.
Before sunrise we’re going to paint Hitler mustaches on every portrait of Bush we can find and cement penises, breats and pubic hair to all the statues we can get our hands on. We have a special group of skilled climbers, Woody who are going to do a job on Stone Mountain.
Yeah, you’ve got us all pegged.
January 26th, 2006 at 12:38 am
“The jury apparently agreed with defense arguments that Welshofer had believed he was following orders to use creative interrogation techniques when he put Iraqi Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush face-first in a sleeping bag, wrapped him in electrical wire and sat on his chest in November 2003. The 57-year-old general died after 20 minutes in the bag.”
If this is the case shouldn’t the people giving the order to use creative interrogation techniques then be put on trial and held accountable? Any plans on that front?
January 26th, 2006 at 12:45 am
“John, you mean like the Democratic Congress which banned aid to the Contras which a Republican President’s cabal circumvented? (Not that the ban was a ban on torture precisely, but it was prompted by the hideous record of a hideous group).”
Dan and Mark, your facts are a little disingenous…your Democratic party goggles are blinding you two once again…
TIMELINE
1982- Congress approves 19 million dollars in covert aid to Contras through the CIA
1983-Congress approves 24 million dollars in overt aid (and now the fun begins)…
Sept. 1983- Contras use their funds and resources to damage internal infrastructure vital to Nicaraguan people: Oil pipelines, the Managua airport, Corino port facilities, etc.
January-Feb 1984-Contras mine Nicaragua’s harbors
October 1984- CIA assassination manuals found in Contra officer’s hands. Interviews by international organizations confirm directives.
May 1, 1985- Congress approves Economic embargo on Nicaragua and its people, Reagan signs it.
June, 1985-Congress approves 28 million dollars in “humanitarian aid” to Contras, a novel interpretation of that term given the rather unhumanitarian activities of the contras.
1986- Congress approves 100 million dollars in aid to contras, 70 million of it in military aid.
1987-as the Iran-Contra scandal is becoming known, Congress approves 20 million dollars in what it calls “non-lethal aid” to the contras.
1988- even after North and Poindexter’s activities are known, Congress approves 48 million dollars in overt aid to the contras.
April 1989- Congress approves 50 million dollars in overt aid to the contras.
Dan, there was never, as you say, a “ban on aid to the contras” by the Democratic Congress - in fact, it was quite the opposite. They continued funding them right on up until the “magic of Democracy” occurred….meaning that the Nicaraguan people, sick of their country being torn apart by Washington’s proxy army in their country, relented and voted in Chamorro over Ortega. The magic of democracy indeed.
Congress DID pass what were called “the Boland Amendments” in Dec. 1982, which prohibited the Defense Dept., the CIA, or any other government agency from providing explicit military aid to the contras from Dec. 1983 to Sept. 1985. In other words, it was a tiny little bit of oversight that they wanted to retain, to better see how things were going.
Note that Congress continued to appropriate large sums of money to the contras well after their activities against the Nicaraguan people were known. These monies continued even in wake of Human Rights Watch reports on the contras, which stated that the contras “engaged in violent abuses…so prevalent that these may be said to be their principal means of waging war.”
Perhaps the Democrats in Congress were following the advice of liberal dove writer Michael Kinsley, who wrote a defense of Washington’s deadly proxy armies in Central America by proposing that their activities needed to be understood using a “cost benefit analysis.”
Mark York says, “Well, we know what happens when powerful popular presidents want things from Congrees don’t we, Steele? They tend to defer across party lines making your insinuation sort of devoid of actual value.”
In other words, Mark York is saying that it is okay if an opposition party goes along with an agenda that is repugnant since they don’t have the backbone to oppose it. I assume that this is York’s position on neo-liberal free trade, “welfare reform,” health care, Iraq, and so on.
It is kind of easy to see why Democrats keep losing elections, when they adopt this sheepish and rather cowardly political philosophy.
I hope this helped.
January 26th, 2006 at 1:10 am
Woody: “There’s a one word response to that, and I think it’s appropriate to mention it before I close up for the night. In fact, it’s required to be mentioned at each post. Here it is….Chappaquiddick. I couldn’t disappoint any of you by not mentioning it, no matter how unrelated.”
Let me ask you, Woody,..If you were her parent, how would you feel about your daughter’s horrible death being exploited like this…by Republican scum bag hacks wanting to score political points?
I can’t believe Democrats are managing to lose to these kinds of people….
January 26th, 2006 at 1:17 am
“Remember that the victim in this case, Iraqi General Abed Hamel Mowhoush was a top, uniformed officer of a recognized state-sponsored enemy army and not some “illegal combatant.—
The fact is that traditional combat operations in Iraq were long over by the time Mowhoush was captured. Mowhoush neither capitulated or surrendered after the Hussein regime CEASED TO EXIST. At that point he was no longer a “uniformed officer” for anything; but he was certainly a member of the terrorist insurgency. Those references to his supposed innocence and protection under Geneva ceased to exist when he switched the uniform of the Iraqi Army for the uniform of terror.
At the time of his capture, the towns of Al Qaim and Husayba were a chaotic wild-west combat zone. Dozens of Iraqi civilian “collaborators” hung headless from light poles on a regular basis there; courtesy of honorable men like Mowhoush.
I don’t condone “torture” (real bamboo shoots under the nails torture) but I don’t believe in coddling guys who are responsible for the absolute atrocities that were occurring DAILY in Al Qaim at the time by the terrorists. Can we expect our troops to view and treat hardened, ideologically driven murderers with absolute compassion, while still maintaining enough pressure to break their will of fight?
Do you think there is a switch that completely turns off the aggression needed to break down the door of a house and kill an armed enemy? Do you think an American warrior has a switch that turns off the horror of seeing innocent civilians swinging from a light pole? Do you think there is a switch that turns off the fear and the fog of war; an easy mechanism that stops the momentum of a mind that is committed to stopping the violence that confronts it? Disciplined soldiers can control themselves, and regularly do, but how long can a soldier see violence day after day without being affected?
This issue is much more psychologically complex than we try to make it. It’s easier for donut-eating civilians to pass judgment in the relative safety of their fantasyland than it would be for them if they were plunked down in the middle of the hell called Al Qaim, Iraq. It’s all about perspective, and walking a mile in the other man’s shoes. I’m not trying to justify criminal activity; but merely to say that sometimes black and white is not so easy to see when you are walking in the gray, foggy world of violence and combat.
He who is without sin, cast the first stone.
January 26th, 2006 at 1:54 am
TBone.. are u auditioning to become a comedy writer? The General loses his status because his army has been defeated and his state has been overthrown? That’s a wonderfully specious argument! In the meantime, think about saving up your patronizing and self-righteous tough-guy tone about us donut-munching civilians for some future period of military dictatorship. In the present moment, fortunately, we still live under rule of law and — like it or not– the military works for us, pal. For all of us, including soft-bottomed goobers who live on a strict diet of bear claws and apple fritters. Got that? That’s the price of democracy. The army works for us– not vice versa.
One of the tasks we donut munchers do not entrust our troops with, however, is the imperative to break international law and engage in barbaric torture as in this case. I dont know if the General we murdered was a terrorist or not.. you seem to have some secret info that he was. His children who were initially accused of the same were released without charges. So they werent. (Indeed they were merely our hostages). If you have some evidence that Mouwhoush was an insurgent leader either put it up or move on.
If he was a terrorist leader, by the way, it seems that smothering him to death in a sack was not exactly the best way to squeeze info out of him. Dead men dont talk much. If, on the other hand, you are going to argue that his death was negilent rather than deliberate, then I would say that Chief Warrant Officer Wolshover was not only a brutal torturer, but he was also a dim-witted one at that. How long would you expect a man to survive who was stuffed in a bag, tied with a cord and sat upon? 20 friggin’ minutes?
What’s most disturbing about your post is not your opinion — to which you are entitled. It’s your self-righteous tone i.e. that civilians are a bunch of panty-waists that dont understand the pressures and dangers of combat. You are very wrong about that. Anyone with a room temp IQ can understand that. And all those heroic soldiers were, themselves, civilians not that long ago. What YOU dont seem to understand is that fighting a war in the name of democracy NEVER exempts you or anyone else from the norms of decency, international law and democracy itself. If that doesnt work for you, then you better reconsider the words in the basic military oath– words wholly consistent with the principles I am arguing. The torture inflicted in this case was illegal, immoral, repulsive, AND completely counter-productive to the mission. That mission is composed not only of a military component, but also one of politics. Both aspects were compromised by this stomach-turning stupidity.
January 26th, 2006 at 2:02 am
Thanks for bringing Jesus into the apologetics. You may not be a “donut eater”, but you’ve got your head up a hole. I looked at your blog and the “Ted Kenndy’s Car” post is enough to peg you as a pretty lame wack-job, uniform or no. Most of it reads like the standard “donut eater” crap I could get on rant radio. Buff Limbaugh…
January 26th, 2006 at 2:05 am
“The fact is that traditional combat operations in Iraq were long over by the time Mowhoush was captured. Mowhoush neither capitulated or surrendered after the Hussein regime CEASED TO EXIST.”
Yes, prior to this George W. Bush did play dress up in the air force uniform while announcing “mission accomplished.” But the fact is, there was never any formal surrender by Saddam Hussein or by any of the Iraqi army’s superior generals. Mowhoush and others may have reasonably believed that the war was still going on…it certainly wouldn’t have been far-fetched, would it have?
But all of this aside, your argument is still without fact. The Geneva Convention does not automatically end even if there is a formal surrender (which there wasn’t). Look at the document and read it. After World War 2, the Phillipines or Australia would not have been permitted to torture Japanese soldiers still holed up on its islands. At the time of his capture, the towns of Al Qaim and Husayba were a chaotic wild-west combat zone.
“Dozens of Iraqi civilian “collaborators†hung headless from light poles on a regular basis there; courtesy of honorable men like Mowhoush.”
Do you know for a fact that Mowhoush was responsible for these attrocities? I read an article in The New Yorker over a year ago that cited Red Cross estimates that 50 to 90 percent of Iraqis interned initially at Abu Ghraib turned out to be innocent of any crimes.
I don’t like to defend anyone deciding that they would like to be a career officer and general for a bloodthirsty madman like Saddam Hussein. But whatever “off-switch” that interrogators may have had a hard time finding didn’t stop them from taking the time - before interrogators apparently snuffed him out - to deliberately hold his teenaged son hostage to force him to turn himself in. This took some time and forethought.
Having said that, though, I will concede to you that it is difficult to judge a US soldier in immediate situations and taking into account the violence that they encounter. I don’t know what I would do in those circumstances.
I do know, though, that I would not turn my back on how I was raised. I’d like to think that we were all raised not hold a young boy hostage to facilitate his father’s capture, and then torture and strangle the boy’s father to death. The problem with your post is that you don’t make a distinction between interrogation and immediate situations (such as breaking down the door of a house and killing an armed enemy). That’s apples and oranges; two different things.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:02 am
“Mark York is saying that it is okay if an opposition party goes along with an agenda that is repugnant since they don’t have the backbone to oppose it. I assume that this is York’s position on neo-liberal free trade, “welfare reform,†health care, Iraq, and so on.”
No I’m not. I’m saying bipartisanship happens, and then the Democrats get hosed. The other side needs to be rebuffed at the outset, but these things don’t happen in totality some go along and some don’t. Then come the charges of they oppose everything. Obstructionists all. Yeah go back to pollyannaville Cummings where Nader is in charge. It only shows how far away from reality you are.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:05 am
“by Republican scum bag hacks wanting to score political points?
I can’t believe Democrats are managing to lose to these kinds of people…. ”
10-4 on that good buddy. I can’t either.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:57 am
Part of the problem is that we are an image driven society (sometimes a good thing - sometimes a bad thing). Images drive the news cycle. When people talk about torture, the Abu-Ghraib pictures are the first thing that comes to mind. They “LOOKED” more like a fraternity hazing ritual than torture, so for some, talk of other incidents of torture fit into that narrow “hazing” category, thereby making it easy to dismiss. And the Abu-Ghraib torture HAD been reported months before the pictures were aired on 60 Minutes. But no one really cared, cause there were no pics to drive our emotions. Another thing, though civilized cultures don’t want to admit it, I believe many people, no matter what country they live in, are more tolerant of the concept of torture “IF” it can result in preventing a catastrophic attack by an enemy. Last I heard, a provision in McCain’s anti-torture bill allows torture of an enemy if an imminent attack is known. It sounds reasonable. If we had one of the 9/11 hijackers in custody on the 10′th of Sept., and knew that his organization was planning some sort of large scale attack in the morning, wouldn’t you want your government to do ALL THAT IT COULD to get info that would prevent the attack? Worse case scenario; what if we had the guy who, we knew, planted a nuke in LA (I’m going all Jack Bauer on you guys - 24, season 2)? The problem of coarse is the evidence that I’ve seen shows torture is pretty ineffective as an information gathering tool. But would we negligent if the bomb blows up, killing millions and we didn’t do EVERYTHING we could to try to get the intell? I think I am comparing apples to apricots, but these are just my thoughts.
January 26th, 2006 at 11:12 am
Dan’O wrote:
Are we the kind of country who condones this or condemns it? Yes…
Yes indeed. We are the country that condones AND condems torture. Ying and Yang lives.
January 26th, 2006 at 12:04 pm
Thanks for the kindly offered help David. I’m happy to be corrected on the particulars which reinforces what I called the banality of finger pointing across party lines. Both parties were very much in the grip of the orthodoxy of the Cold War, some of which had merit and some of which was no more than cover for a less grandiose set of purposes.
But still, there was an explicit ban on military aid which North and company circumvented, and that is what I referred to, however inexactly. It is a bit disingenous of you to pretend that I meant something other than the ban that resulted in Iran Contra, and the collective amnesia that suddenly befell the Administration at that time.
I’m sure we can trade barbs over which party invaded, bombed, overthrew, mined, subverted and winked at such all day long, and we’ll be sure to find plenty on both sides. But whatever the party is, do you think we can, all together now(!), find merit in the notion that we ought not engage in torture as official practice on the grounds of human liberty and dignity? A pair of principles I think it is fair to say we we born from. Or is it all immutable to you? What was once done stains forever and can never be remedied? And as a matter of history, it is this Administration now that is allowing this to happen, not the Democrats in charge of the Viet Nam war.
January 26th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
“No I’m not. I’m saying bipartisanship happens, and then the Democrats get hosed.”
You are reaching here. What do you mean by “hosed?”
“The other side needs to be rebuffed at the outset, but these things don’t happen in totality some go along and some don’t.”
“Some”? That’s putting it generously.
“Then come the charges of they oppose everything.”
This is the weakest argument that I have ever heard, though it is often repeated by centrists: what if they charge us as being obstructionists?
Kerry never was able to say in the 2004 election, “I voted against the resolution authorizing George Bush to divert troops away from the war on terrorism for this Iraqi adventure.” Instead, Bush and his Republican jackals were able to crow, “Kerry believed the same way we did! Kerry voted for the war!” The differences between them became blurred. A solid, solid majority of Americans polled say that going to Iraq in the first place never should have been done. And you know what? Not a single prominent Democrat can say that they were on the side of the majority of the American people.
No Child Left Behind? The Medicare Prescription Drug Boondoggle to the Pharmaceutical Companies? Same thing. These awful bills were supported by so many Democrats that it is not even funny.
History, Mark York, will show who was right on these kinds of issues. Unlike you, I feel that being on the right side of history is much more important than temporary political gain (and even temporary political gain has not happened…nor should it).
“Yeah go back to pollyannaville Cummings where Nader is in charge. It only shows how far away from reality you are.”
If you believe that Democrats are doing themselves a favor by being co-opted by the god awful right, than I think that shows us who is really in la la land.
January 26th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
“But still, there was an explicit ban on military aid”
It was a moratorium. Congress even said that they planned on appropriating additional money in the future to the contras at the time of this moratorium.
In your earlier post, Dan, you said that this “ban” came about because it was, in your words, “prompted by the hideous record of a hideous group.” Horse feathers. That had nothing to do with the moratorium. Congress renewed (accelerated) spending to the contras even after the Human Rights Watch reports, AND the stories involving drug running to the U.S. Funding from Congress continued until 1990. A ban, Dan, is a “BAN.” If it was a “ban,” why did the Democratic Congress fund the contras afterwards? The Democratic Congress just wanted to control the purse strings (probably so that they could specify which Congressional district would get what amount of pork money).
January 26th, 2006 at 1:02 pm
Ok David, last comment on this as we are getting way off topic.
Boy do you like to nitpick. The effect of a moratorium and a ban AT THE TIME OF ENACTMENT is the same. You’re not scoring any points here my man. I’ll concede that it was a moratorium if that makes you happy. But the amendment starts “An amendment to prohibit covert assistance for military operations in Nicaragua and to authorize overt interdiction assistance.” Prohibit is pretty unambiguous, and I do not see the word “moratorium” anywhere, although it can be seen as such in hindsight. Rejoinder?
Also, the Senate in 1982 (the 97th Congress), when the Boland amendmant was passed, was controlled by Republicans, who had gained a majority since the 96th Congress. And, it seems, the House passed the Boland amendment 411-0, and if my counting is correct, that must surely have included a Republican or two. Then the amendment was signed by a Republican President. Two (please check my math again) branches of government were Republican at that time. The “Democratic” Congress you claim is a chimera, and there goes your claim about pork as the motivating factor. Sorry.
As for why they turned the spigot back on I can only speculate without going back and reading about the whole affair again, and I’m not so inclined at the moment.
This’ll learn me to make a few good faith comments without thorough research. Sheesh. But don’t try to split hairs with me while your ducks wander all over the lake. (Does that count as a mixed metaphor?)
January 26th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
Well how refreshing to attacked as being too conservative. I’m only describing the conditions as they exist, not as my passion would want them to be. They put us in Iraq. Almost no one advocated getting out immediately, only the prescription for getting there, which I might add they have adopted the Kerry proposal. What a surprise.
I’m aware of history and what it will show. I write it from detailed research myself. Republicans and Democrats are as different as Federalists and anti-federalists. Look it up.
January 26th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
Marc,
You said,
I am going to show you part of the convention. My intent is not to get into a legal debate with you…I am not a lawyer. But I thought you should at least have a look at the ACTUAL WORDING OF THE CONVENTIONS before you start engaging in argument about it.
If you want to call the terrorists/insurgents a “resistance movement”, you can look at the convention and clearly see that neither (b), (c), nor (d) apply to them. If those conditions don’t apply, then they don’t fall into the category of POW. If you look further into Geneva and the Law of Land Warfare, you will see that certain conditions apply to members of the armed forces (i.e. wearing a consistent uniform item, etc.) that specifically give them their status. Absence of those qualities removes the status. The treaty says military members running around pretending to be regular civilians can be tried as spies. Those kind of distinctions are important in the “law”. You remember that rule of law thing you were talking about? That is what I meant by “lose his status”. The General was not in his uniform because he was not serving the Iraqi Army; instead he was serving a different master.
Before you call a comment “specious”, perhaps you should do some research on the subject first. Looks like you just pull facts out of thin air, instead of really knowing something. The rule of law applies to both BOTH sides; this includes General Mahwoush. He fell into a different category; if you want further clarification, consult an attorney.
You also said,
Note: I don’t work for you “pal”. I don’t see you anywhere in my chain of command. But what the hell does that have to do with anything I said? Why are you ranting about who I work for? I know who I work for. I took the oath to support and defend…did you?
And as far as the “rule of law”, I have been faithfully following the lawful orders of those appointed over me since Reagan was President. I am probably more knowledgeable about the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (our law) and Federal Code than you are. I don’t torture people, and I certainly don’t condone it either. I didn’t say Welshofer was innocent of the charges. I said perhaps his sentence was just considering all the facts. So who the hell are you to lecture me in such a disrespectful tone?
I don’t put stuffing a man in a sleeping bag in the “barbaric torture” category. That’s a little bit of exaggeration on your part. (But I guess folks like you are prone to exaggeration. That’s why your masters will never win the Red states.) Ever been camping in cold weather? Well, I slept in the same kind of sleeping bag Welshofer used on many, many occasions. The military sleeping bag comes in three separate layers: a lightweight inner layer (for warmer nights), a heavier outer layer, and a waterproof Gortex “bivvy sack”. When it is really cold, you put them all together, zip the up completely, and then you can sleep real toasty. I slept night after night for months in all three layers, completely enclosed (drawstrings closed. head completely inside the bag. tight. closed. snow on top.) to keep out snow and wind (that means closed). I DID NOT SUFFOCATE!! How the hell did you come up with your facts? Did you just pull “20 minutes” out of a hat? Did you do the “20 minute test”? No, you did the I-made-it-up-because-it-fits-my-argument test.
You said,
If you can find the stats on attacks in Al Qaim (I don’t have them handy but I will find them later) you will see that insurgent attacks were considerably lower starting right after Mahwoush was captured. Let me ask you this…How many months did you spend fighting the insurgency in Iraq? Ah wait….NONE. And how many insurgents, or terrorists, or Iraqis have you personally talked to about the insurgency in Iraq? Hmmmm….NONE. Okay…how many interrogation reports, or Iraqi informant reports have you read concerning the insurgency? NONE. How many link-diagrams of insugent networks have you looked at lately? The answer again is…NONE. Your source is what…the New York Times? CNN? Give me a break. I’ve been there “pal”…in fact I’ve been there THREE TIMES. It’s not just my job…it’s my career. I deal with terrorists for a living. You are the one with a room temp IQ if you believe you alone have the monopoly on truth. If you want to know the real-deal, why don’t you sign up for the military, or get a job with a security clearance; then you can read away to your heart’s content. Otherwise keep believing your ideological masters, or the New York Times? They get it right every time don’t they?
Lastly you said,
I never implied anything to the contrary. I merely pointed out that combat stress seriously affects perception in cases like this one. The whole process, from point-of-capture to detention, is a dangerous one when you are dealing with committed murderers, suicide-bombers, and other assorted whackos. I’m not talking about “freedom fighters”, or soldiers who are legitimately trying to engage an invader; I’m talking about evil murderers and ideological killers (folks who decapitate prisoners, not stuff them in sleeping bags). Those are the kind of people we deal with on a daily basis. And some interrogators go on missions to kill/capture insurgents, so they get to experience the whole meal-deal of emotions. And room temp IQ or not…if you haven’t been in combat, you will NEVER know how it feels. It sucks in a way you will never imagine from your lazy-boy recliner while you contemplate whether to vote for Hillary or Howard. Don’t be embarrassed that some people do difficult and scary things that you could never do…you have to learn to love yourself more.
Hey “pal”, next time how about being a little more hospitable to guests who don’t share your point of view. I wasn’t rude to you. You should feel happy I hit your site. You talk like you are all righteous when you pretend to defend noble concepts like the “rule of law” etc., but YOUR tone shows you for what you really are when you’re challenged - a hypocrite. I bet you would like to stuff me in a sleeping bag, wouldn’t you?
January 26th, 2006 at 1:35 pm
Indeed Dan O on the Republican Reagan revolution in the first term. They managed to bankrupt the place in short order. Historian Richard Reeves has a good detailed look at the period with that majority. Kind of like now huh?
January 26th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
“I don’t put stuffing a man in a sleeping bag in the “barbaric torture†category.”
Oh really? How about a pillowcase and standing on his chest until suffocation ocurrs? I mean that’s the ssence of what happened to this guy. If you don’t as a soldier condone this, don’t act as if you do. Lose the weasel-wording euphamisms. Causing death by “interrogation methods” doesn’t change what it is. The absence of a uniform is a good point though. A technicality but pertinent to status nonetheless.
January 26th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
“I bet you would like to stuff me in a sleeping bag, wouldn’t you?”
Marc, I’m not certain, but I’m pretty sure that’s a romantic overture. I’m going to have to use that line at the nightclub.
January 26th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
Isn’t it interesting that John McCain - that notorious Lazy Boy recliner - has been out in front on this issue. (I don’t want to mention John Kerry, because I’m sure T-Bone operates on the assumption that Kerry spent his time in Nam eating donuts while scheming how to cut himself with a nail clipper and claim a Purple Heart - T-Bone just strikes me as that kind of super-duper-soldier guy.)
What a dishonest, arrogant little punk.
January 26th, 2006 at 8:48 pm
Everytime I start to kid myself that fascism could never take root in the U.S., there’s Woody to remind me that every country in the world is full of potential concentration camp guards, if only you frame things for them right.
January 26th, 2006 at 11:48 pm
“It’s easier for donut-eating civilians to pass judgment in the relative safety of their fantasyland”
Mr. Steakbone,
I don’t know who taught you your manners, but the next time you whine about your host being “rude”, you might want to use a little common sense and refrain from hurling buffoonish insults at them in the first place. And if not, well, then it’s kind of silly to be shocked when, in the process of intellectually embarrassing you, your host is a bit less careful to avoid hurting your feelings.
Just a thought.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:34 am
TBone… let’s get one thing clear… your crack about donut munching civilians was offensive to me and just about everyone else not in uniform.
We — all of us– by the way are damn straight in your chain of command. The people of the United States are sovereign. We elect the civilian government and that’s the government you report to — at least until further notice. You work for us.
Your assertion that you can sleep an entire night in a sleeping bag and not suffocate is a real beaut. Next time you’re out camping, have your buds soften you up by a beating with hoses, pouring water down your nose and then zipping your head in the bag, tying you with a cord, and sitting on you for twenty minutes and then let’s see if ur around to see daybreak. No, I didnt invent that time span. That comes from the evidence submitted in the U.S. Army court martial. Got a problem with that? Talk to the military prosecutors.
I appreciate your posting of the conventions. They are open to interpretation. But the legal hair splitting is beside the point. I stand by my major assertion: The behavior of Welshofer was barbaric and dishonorable and counter-productive by any standard — under any circumstances– even if his victim was caught red-handed with an IED.
Your point about combat stress is also well taken. If soldiers under fire kick in a door and mistakenly over-react that’s one thing. Quite another is what Welshofer did. He was calm, cool and deliberate. His behavior was a methodical application of torture within the confices of a military base. His victim submitted peacefully to custody as his sons were being held hostage by Welshofer’s accomplices. NOT acceptable behavior for a U.S. officer. Period.
We encourage calm debate on this blog and it’s true I snapped at you. But it is extremely offensive to be lectured about being donut eating civilains. If the American people make you uncomfortable, you might ask yourself why it is you are willing to risk your life in their defense.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:51 am
Hmm, it seems that civilians aren’t allowed to speak up about their military’s methods, according to some people here. Reminds me of the “Starship Troopers” parody - “Service guarantees citizenship - would you like to know more?”.
P.
January 27th, 2006 at 8:04 am
Marc,
My argument was specifically pointed at Welshofer’s personal culpability. Your argument seemingly placed the blame for the entire Mowhoush affair on Welshofer alone, without taking into consideration all the others involved with it. That is what I have issue with.
If you followed the trial, as you seemed to indicate with your sleeping bag logic, you may have also seen that Mowhoush was beaten and abused well prior to arriving in Welshofer’s hands. I didn’t talk about that because that was not my focus. But if you would like to know…I think what those other people did to the General was reprehensible and atrocious. I don’t condone Welshofer’s actions either, but the actions he took were not