I know, I’m dreamin’….

US torture is bad, right there about 98 on my list of 100 bad things happening in the world in 2004. The US torture seems a lot less than Islamofascist beheadings, and their torture before their murders.

I think Sudan, Iran, No. Korea, Congo, even Cuba are all deserving of more attention.

But after the Iraqi elections, I suspect the US will send more prisoners to be detained by Iraqis, and the more usual Arab treatment of prisoners — and that you and Steve will complain then, too; and I might even mention that more humans are actually dying in Sudan, No. Korea, etc…

America’s not perfect. How much imperfection do I accept, when. More, now, than you. Because the realistic / likely alternatives I see are worse.

Likewise I think the USA should have stayed in Vietnam, rather than leave and accept the Killing Field genocides.

Leahy might do it. I’m sending Schumer an angry letter, but I have less faith in him.

Then ya woulda had to occupy Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos,…for a long time. Pretty hard to compete economically when you’re occupying small countries and fighting endless guerilla battles for decades.

Maybe a little preventive medicine woulda worked, like not bombing the holy moses outta Cambodia? I recall Sid Schanberg and Bill Shawcross both thought that was no small factor in pushing Cambodia to where it went. Of course the combined support for the KR from the Reagan administration and Jackson Democrats only made things even worse.

If you wanna prevent a killing field in Iraq, take the main force that is responsible for creating the conditions of violence in Iraq today…the US military.

To blithley dismiss this issue by labeling it as an `imperfection’ is just plain ludicrous. I might be more correct to call it `aiding and abetting the enemy’.

No, really. I’m serious. No, I’m not going to say something “clever” like, “Strangelove didn’t create a war on fake intelligence,” or even cite Hermann Kahn’s line that Strangelove was ‘too creative.’ Not gonna do that. It doesn’t work, analogically speaking.

Fact is, Rumsfeld really is Robert McNamara come again. This is someone used to a corporate structure, with a _lot_ of support to keep him afloat and a lot of insulation from the consequences of his decisions. It’s the kind of confidence one sees in the reasoning, “I must be extremely competent, because I keep getting rewarded.”

This is, BTW, the one archetype of Cold War government that Kubrick and Southern missed in their film. Happily, Joseph Heller caught it _perfectly_ in _Catch-22_.

The critical point is not the relativisitc argument that “our methods might be bad but they aren’t as bad as theirs”; instead it is as Marc says and as jim hitchcock amplifies: our principles demand that we hold ourselves to a significantly higher standard than our (evil?) opponent.

Cruising around the other day I came across a review of a book by David Hackett Fischer called “Washington’s Crossing”. This review is posted at http://vernondent.blogspot.com/, scroll down to the post of Sunday, December 19, 2004 for the whole thing.

Here are the relevant excerpts:

“In 1776, American leaders believed that it was not enough to win the war. They also had to win in a way that was consistent with the values of their society and the principles of their cause. One of their greatest achievements in the winter campaign of 1776-77 was to manage the war in a manner that was true to the expanding humanitarian ideals of the American Revolution. … In Congress and the army, American leaders resolved that the War of Independence would be conducted with a respect for human rights, even of the enemy. This idea grew stronger during the campaign of 1776-77, not weaker as is commonly the case in war.”

. . .

“It had been a year of disasters. The British routed the Continental army from Long Island, then captured New York City along with many prisoners. The redcoats next pushed George Washington back through New Jersey, waging an increasingly savage campaign not just against the Continental army but against the whole “Levelling, underbred, Artfull, Race of people” they found in America.

Yet early in 1777, John Adams wrote to his wife, “I know of no policy, God is my witness, but this — Piety, Humanity and Honesty are the best Policy. Blasphemy, Cruelty and Villainy have prevailed and may again. But they won’t prevail against America, in this Contest, because I find the more of them are employed, the less they succeed.”

I don’t write this in an attempt to equate the Iraqi insurgents with America’s founders – they couldn’t be more different. My point is that it is good to have, and practical to follow, principles and ideals. If we don’t follow our principles then we risk devolving to the level of our barbarous insurgent friends.

I question the timing of these interviews and memos. At a very, very quick glance, they appear to date shortly after the Abu Ghraib prison story broke. It seems me, FBI agents who were taking heat for their inept intelligence gathering prior to 9/11 were 1) getting even, 2) distracting (hey look, we’re not the only fuck-ups) and 2)covering their asses.

Over the last couple of thousand of years, humanity has dragged itself out of the caves… and while — indeed– the 20th century was the bloodiest in human history, we have simultaneously made some strides toward greater levels of civilization. And now what? Confronted not by the almighty Japanese Empire nor by the Wehrmacht, but rather by a rag-tag of second drawer terrorists, we are supposed to chuck our pretenses to civilization and to world leadership and resort to bone-breaking, and hot pokers up the rear? I hope not.

The stuff conspiracy theorists will come up with on a good day…

1. U.S. torture is not as important as other, more serious crimes.

2. This stuff isn’t torture.

I find both of these rationales very flimsy and wholly unpersuasive for reasons outlined by other posters.

GJ, Woody, others: Is there another reason not to investigate this behavior that I’m missing? If not, then why isn’t all this a bigger deal? Why aren’t more Americans outraged?

p.s. Tom, none of the countries on your problem list are Democracies. We are institutionally able to hold our government to a much higher standard. Let’s take advantage of it.

Hope also that the sarcastic tone in the `p-h-l-s G-Men’ remark is recognized…probably not a good time to wind up on an `enemies’ list…

The critical point is not the relativisitc argument that “our methods might be bad but they aren’t as bad as theirs”; instead it is as Marc says and as jim hitchcock amplifies: our principles demand that we hold ourselves to a significantly higher standard than our (evil?) opponent.

Cruising around the other day I came across a review of a book by David Hackett Fischer called “Washington’s Crossing”. This review is posted at http://vernondent.blogspot.com/, scroll down to the post of Sunday, December 19, 2004 for the whole thing.

Here are the relevant excerpts:

“In 1776, American leaders believed that it was not enough to win the war. They also had to win in a way that was consistent with the values of their society and the principles of their cause. One of their greatest achievements in the winter campaign of 1776-77 was to manage the war in a manner that was true to the expanding humanitarian ideals of the American Revolution. … In Congress and the army, American leaders resolved that the War of Independence would be conducted with a respect for human rights, even of the enemy. This idea grew stronger during the campaign of 1776-77, not weaker as is commonly the case in war.”

. . .

“It had been a year of disasters. The British routed the Continental army from Long Island, then captured New York City along with many prisoners. The redcoats next pushed George Washington back through New Jersey, waging an increasingly savage campaign not just against the Continental army but against the whole “Levelling, underbred, Artfull, Race of people” they found in America.

Yet early in 1777, John Adams wrote to his wife, “I know of no policy, God is my witness, but this — Piety, Humanity and Honesty are the best Policy. Blasphemy, Cruelty and Villainy have prevailed and may again. But they won’t prevail against America, in this Contest, because I find the more of them are employed, the less they succeed.”

I don’t write this in an attempt to equate the Iraqi insurgents with America’s founders – they couldn’t be more different. My point is that it is good to have, and practical to follow, principles and ideals. If we don’t follow our principles then we risk devolving to the level of our barbarous insurgent friends.