Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

Remember when, after Sept 11, many americans asked themselves "Why do they hate us?". I hope someone in the US sets up americansapologize.org, where real people in the US can write heartfelt apologies (no excuses, apologies) about what their leaders and their country is doing. Counter some of the hate being generated. Show them you care, and that not everyone in the US agrees with this or thinks some lame excuses are enough.

Your arguments make a lot of sense to me; I think they'd be listened to by most people. I think that deep down most people are repulsed by what we've seen, no matter what their external bravado might indicate.

If we appeal to folks' basic humanity, this may be a point in the debate where people can come together.

It's not wimpy either. It takes a lot of strength to admit the truth and see it through.

Sorry, but I can never agree on the need for torture. Someone may say, "But what if a person has the information to stop a bomb that will kill thousands. Wouldn't that be good reason for torture?"

Is it good reason in this country within out prison system? If torture is not allowed internally, why should we condone it externally?

And what leads us to believe that a person has this information? Should we then say of all prisoners we capture in Iraq, that they have this information so then we're justified in torturing all of them?

I guess I fail hopelessly at compromise.

"But what if a person has the information to stop a bomb that will kill thousands. Wouldn't that be good reason for torture?"

No.

Torturing a suspect is a very reliable way to get him or her to say something that the torturer wants to hear. That doesn't mean it's a reliable way to get the truth. (Hobbes said this in the Leviathan, over two hundred years ago.) Your bomb suspect, under torture, might give a police a plausible story that will keep them occupied somewhere else until the real bomb goes off. And what if the suspect is innocent?

Shelley, I used to be a pacifist but I got tired of having to argue that even in the most contrived examples it'd still be wrong to kill anyone. Nah, I came to believe there are rare cases when killing is justified. I feel the same way about torture.

On the other hand, I often identify myself as a pacifist because I think it's good to have pacifists on the political scene. I just don't mean by "pacifist" "Someone who opposes killing in every weird, implausible scenarios some college freshman dreams up." Likewise, I think it's better simply to say No to torture. No no no. Not in my name. But if someone wants to bring up a scenario in which I can save NYC if I'm willing to hurt someone, I'll say: "Sure, there are imaginable circumstances. But the same is true for every law and scruple. So, let's talk about reality. And in reality, we need to be against torture as a practice and as a policy."

If the only way to get to common ground about torture is for my side to admit that there are imaginable circumstances in which causing pain to someone would be justifiable, then I'm willing to admit to that...so long as the common ground says (and means) that we Americans are against torture.

Ms. Powers,

You fail hopelessly at applying logic, in this case:

"If we appeal to folks' basic humanity, this may be a point in the debate where people can come together."

Again, for those hard of hearing: Convince bin, then you and I can have a real good discussion... And to those who've forgotten that (along with Saudi Arabia, the U.S.S.R. and others of course) U.S. financing largely made bin et al into the power it is:

You probably never knew that the U.S. attempted same in '98. This was three (3) years after bin declared war on the U.S., iirc.

Do you have any understanding of the fact that this Declaration of War on America was, in actual fact, quite tardy? Being as the first Battle of the WTC was in the early 90's. (Which was only apparently won by the U.S. as the Battle of Oklahoma City, decidedly lost by the U.S., followed thereafter by these same kinds of terrorists.)

Not having much understanding leads to statements like this, Shel:

"Is it good reason in this country within out prison system? If torture is not allowed internally, why should we condone it externally?

And what leads us to believe that a person has this information? Should we then say of all prisoners we capture in Iraq, that they have this information so then we're justified in torturing all of them?"

You're joking if you don't think torture is allowed in prison, internally. Have you not heard what became of Jeffrey Daimmer (sp?) and many others. Have you not heard of "prison justice"?

Have you not heard that there is slavery, in 2004, in the U.S. in Florida (of ALL places!) among other places?

And if you don't think a person in Iraq has ANY useful information, then if you would be so kind YOURSELF to provide information on where the next bombings will occur, when, and by who? And with what weaponry?

TIA!

Now we can, in reality, cease all this senseless activity!!

Your pseudo-logic is that you are against torture in Iraq (who isn't), so therefore there is ABSOLUTELY NO valuable information to be gained. You work BACKWARDS from your conclusion to the facts of the matter, as is commonly done.

Although I agree you are not very good at compromise, that is not really the point.

@Seth Gordin, you have little to no to absolutely no understanding of psy-ops, aka marketing/teaching, from what I can tell (icbw, but seems pretty obvious that you don't), so why don't you recuse yourself from this conversation?

Dr. Weinberger, you (to me, finally...)-; make a few good points.

However, as "the journey of 10,000 miles begins with a single step", so taking the first, last, and every-in-between step IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION is of some no-small importance:

(Iow, it's not how big or how poetic or how loud or how angry or how passionate a person's step is, leaving a wake for immortality to fix up.. It is largely whether the step is totally and completely hypocritical, or only slightly so, which is of primary importance, contrary to what the blogs of the Blogdom will indicate (while they TELL you it's not about getting attention or anythin like THAT.. naw, it's not for ego-gratification a-TALL, right?!?...;-))

You won't find the middle by taking the first step as dividing things into left and right.

Sorry, cain't be did.

Not in questions of this kind, although works quite well at other times.

Perhaps after/if the the dust settles after my comments and the air clears here and time permits, I will follow-up with some discussion of your points, David, and others 'course. And David, I hope you keep in mind (as to my "lame eye" you appear to HAVE kept in mind with this particular writing) anger almost always in each-and-every case leads very directly to "ol korrect" thinking/saying/doing.

Iow PC, but wrong, thought/feelings/instincts usually comes from anger.

JayT, are you suggesting that OBL gets to dictate what the US considers to be just and right action? We have to wait for him to stop being a terrorist before we'll stop torturing people? Anything he does we're allowed to do? Wow. I find that very disturbing, and it sure runs in the face of what I was brought up to believe about America.

David:

Very well put. Your reasoning and your writing has never been better. Thank you.

JayT:

Please, please, and I say this with love, consider decaf.

"Now we can, in reality, cease all this senseless activity!!"

Please feel free to do so at any time. Please.

Torture has never been a publicly acknowledged, legitimate means of either extracting information or securing compliance. That there is a long history of physical abuse which might easily be classed as "torture" is _not_ evidence of it being an officially, publicly condoned practice. It is a problem we grapple with all the time. The difference is a significant one, as small as it may be at times. To erase the difference is to remove yet another layer of the thin veneer we call "civilization."

That so many people seem oblivious to this important difference only serves to illustrate just how truly thin that veneer is. And it grows thinner by the day as we indulge our fears and abandon our faith in our values, our institutions and in ourselves.

"As you sow, so shall you reap."

Re-reading my post, I think I may leave some people with the impression that I regard physical abuse as appropriate as long as we don't call it "torture." That is not what I mean.

The physical abuse of human beings by people in a authority is a problem because we don't condone it, we don't approve of it, and we don't expect it. When it happens, we try to hold the individuals responsible accountable. We often fall short of the mark, but that does not mean we approve, tolerate, or accept the physical abuse of human beings by individuals in authority. We emphatically do not.

I hope I've made myself clear.

Here's a possibly controversial take..I'm not saying its true but sometimes I do wonder: we didnt leash the Nazi's because they were westerners. Maybe in some sense this abuse is a mordern version of KKK lynches: here is a profile of the place this division comes from:
http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story.jsp?sectionid=1258&storyid=1302907

Now whether this is torture or not is really not the point. Humiliation is far worse in producing enemies, and in all Asian cultures, face is very important. I wouldnt be surprised if it was enough in Iraq to create enemies by roughly searching someone's house; I shuuder to think what this prison episode will beget.

David, I'm with Shelley re torture, but I think that since we are 99% in agreement, quibbling about is longer is a Trotskyist-like waste of time.

How I would seek agreement across the right - left divide is by asking:

Do we believe that there should be a set of rules that apply to everybody?

I think a lot of this comes down to the rule of law. Generally speaking, the United States has believed in and promoted a set of rules about how states should treat people, and accepted its duty to live by those rules as well. This administration has promoted the view that the rules don't apply to us, because we are the good guys, and good guys don't need rules.

I believe that Abu Ghraib demonstrates the fallacy of that proposition, for leftists and rightists alike.

Any other stupid and/or ignorant remarks?

@Stevie: I am not a kept man, so I'm writing this in between working. I may have been a bit rushed, but do you know how many times I've heard variations of your lame theme? (I drink 2/3 caffeinated, and 1/3 decaf, btw. You wanna know why? Been there, said that.)

I've gained a pretty good sense of false words, and "and I say this with love" is plainly false, tho good-intentioned.

Dave (Rogers, I presume), there was a small typo or two: "Torture has never been ... publicly acknowledged [as a] legitimate means of either extracting information or securing compliance."

As you then said, "The physical abuse of human beings by people in a authority is a problem because we don't condone it, we don't approve of it, and we don't expect it [if we are so lame to not expect such things in a war]."

So, rather than provide answers you, in reality, DO pose a good question: If something goes on, say starvation in the "greatest" country on the planet, being the U.S.. Well, if something goes on this abhorrent, and no matter how much we blah, blah, blog about it, it still continues... Are we not, in essence, TO AN EXTENT condoning this abhorrent behavior?? (I dunno to WHAT extent, but surely the answer is to an extent, yes...)-;

Furthermore, you leave open the question of whether physical or emotional or psychological "torture" is worse or better than the others.

Rahul, somewhat of an interesting point which misses the mark. I can assure you that massively more Germans and Japanese were killed rather than being tortured, compared to Iraq. That'd be my best guess, anyway, as I was not there.

Interesting link, but you (at least to my "lame eye"...;-) miss some-a THE primary points:

"Colleagues of the tough, super-fit officer last night described her as a woman with one mission – to raise her own profile.

She'd be a natural blogger.. too bad...;-)

Sources also said soldiers at Abu Ghraib, where Saddam Hussein was held after his capture, were often drunk – including when the shocking pictures were taken.

This is amazing.. only drunk. Folks I've talked to that were in Nam needed more in the way of pain-killers.

One colleague said: 'Janis sees herself as making way for women to get to the top in the US Army. But many of her soldiers said she had been promoted beyond her ability because she was a woman.

'She was out of her depth and on a mission to raise her own profile. Now, she ll be forced to quit.

Well, strictly speaking, anybody in the situation in Iraq is "out of their depth", because that's the condition of being in a war.

'She should have been aware what her troops were doing, but she wasn't.'"

I speak from personal experience here, awareness is mostly-inversely proportional to being drunk.

Point remains however, that the civilians who were tortured, murdered and then mutilated apparently are afforded less rights of the Geneva Convention that Iraqi terrorists get. ("Terrorists", recalling that those in the pictures are on the side of those killing Iraqi's as well as Americans.)

Funny that people forget that, but reality isn't always much fun.

Finally, for now, lemme explain something about America:

As to the question, "Do we believe that there should be a set of rules that apply to everybody?"

In America, of course we do not believe that!!!!!!!!!

That's the stupidest idea on the planet, to real American's. What-I-call real Americans believe there are some sets of rules which should apply to everybody, but there are a LOT of rules which are left to countries, states, localities and both communities and individuals to make and apply to themselves and for themselves.

Yes, there are also a LOT of rules in America that DO apply to everybody. Then there's the problem that the rules apply, but are not enforced, so whaz the diff...?

This viewpoint is not so common outside of America, afaik, which is why people both try very hard to come to America to live in massive numbers, and try to destroy America in lesser numbers.

Btw, this is part of what I've been referring to, above.

Unless I'm a total fool, I believe this article (among others) had more to do with my expressions of views than any amount-a caffeine did.

Sheesh...)-;

JayT,

Are you saying that I'm an International Woman of Mystery, or that you think my name is Powers, or....something?

Saw Mr. Weinberger on TV and thought I'd give the Internet a try. Kerry supporter. Redhead. Cleveland, Ohio.

Annie

JayT: I believe the question was about whether YOU (Americans) believe your own values / rulesets are among the universal ones, but your interpretation of it as being about whether a central authority (such as ... err... the US occupying forces in Iraq) should impose its rules on others is just as relevant.

If you believe your values, or better said the values of the American and French revolutions, are universal and we all should be free, la-la-la, enjoy democracy, etc., then you must oppose your government's violent occupation of Iraq, imposition of client leaders and theft of resources.

If you also believe that people should be allowed their own rulesets / autonomy then you must oppose your government's refusal to allow the Iraqi people to choose their own leaders and govern their own affairs.

Torture, along with many other humiliating and uncivilised practices routinely used by US forces in Iraq, is morally, legally, but also tactically wrong.

Ms. Collingwood,

I'm assuming "Shelley" is none other than Shelley Powers of Burningbird. (I did not check, so icbw.) I could see the corn-fusion, as I quoted you. I was merely suggesting that you and Shelley are SOMEwhat of a wimp, by the implication.

Nice ta meet ya...:-D I'm down a piece here in CowTown. (Formerly a red-head as a child, now brown and greying...;-)

JayT: I believe the question was about whether YOU (Americans)

To be redundant, finding a middle by STARTING OUT by dividing everything into "us" and "them" is somewhat retarded.

believe your own values / rulesets are among the universal ones,

Excuse me for interrupting again. But XQQ ME...?!?!?!?! Mr. or Ms. Bryant, can you name me even one culture that does NOT have values / rulesets that are NOT among the universal ones...?????

Assuming you'll come up with the correct answer, which is "Dag.. ...Come-ta think-a it... No, I can't" then quit blaming Americans for what all cultures do.

but your interpretation of it as being about whether a central authority (such as ... err... the US occupying forces in Iraq) should impose its rules on others is just as relevant.

The U.S. has no "occupying forces" in Iraq, o' foolish one.

Yes, there are U.S. forces in Iraq. But if you are a student of history, or even know how to read, you just MIGHT observe that America was largely responsible for "occupying forces" in war NOT KEEPING THE TERRITORY WON in said war.

This, by luck or chance or skill, was one-a THE primary advances of the 20th Century, afaik.

If you believe your values,

Sheesh, I'll ask again: Can you point to the individual, or peoples, or countries.. or WHOEVER....

......Point these out who do NOT believe in their values, at least enough to give their values lip service.

....Point these people out, if any, and I doubt they'll be many Americans. Mebbe StavrosTheWonderChicken, but no real Americans as I defined them above.

or better said the values of the American and French revolutions, are universal and we all should be free, la-la-la, enjoy democracy, etc.,

I can only speak for myself.

NO I ABSOLUTELY DO ***!NOT!*** believe "we all" should be free, be grasshoppers instead of ants, enjoy democracy, etc...

"We all" includes countries/societies/cultures that have known no other way of living than warfare and totalitarian government.

"We all" includes the people of Iraq, who are (in my observation) doing amazingly well at keeping some loose semblance of order, in spite of having a generation that was raised strictly (in both senses of term) under Martial Law.

They, I believe, may continue to adapt to democracy since it has, in a sense, been foisted on them by Saddam Hussein and others.

then you must oppose your government's violent occupation of Iraq, imposition of client leaders and theft of resources.

Obviously you are confused about what I must, and must not, do.

Because I get to decide (to an extent) what I must oppose, not you.

If you also believe that people should be allowed their own rulesets / autonomy then you must oppose your government's refusal to allow the Iraqi people to choose their own leaders and govern their own affairs.

You must only read blogs.

Heard-a June 30??

Torture, along with many other humiliating and uncivilised practices routinely used by US forces in Iraq, is morally, legally, but also tactically wrong.

That would be easy for you to say, "Lee Bryant", as you don't appear to be intelligent enough to understand that, no matter where you live nor your citizenship, you are a target to be executed.

It's not just Americans, in case you didn't hear the news:

Right before the Presidential election in Russia?

A week or two after Saudi Arabia stated in the press that they were interested in moving quicker towards Democracy??

Right before the election in Spain???

You hear of ANY of this, Lee?

You speak of military tactics, Lee, but if you don't even see what's going on then I question your capability to speak on these issues, whatsover.

Aloha, David.

I have posted this elsewhere before, but it bears repeating:

"Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature... and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions?" - Dostoevski

I think David's idea--to try to find a shared way to think about what happened in Abu Ghraib--is a fine one. I am very unhappy with the right-wing pushback that humiliating naked jailbirds for the fun of it wasn't really so bad (obligatory reference to plastic shredder) or wasn't really so surprising. I am pleased that Bush doesn't share that attitude. He is knocking himself out to redeem the image those photos created abroad.

You know, Hitler was a very evil person. He was much more evil than, say, some driver who goes through a stop sign and causes a fender bender. But if we all shrug at the fender bender because Hitler was so much worse, we might as well tear up the law about obeying stop signs. And if we shrug at the abuse of prisoners, we might as well write a new law that says torture is fine.

It is the apex of irony that the conduct occurred in Sadaam's "rape rooms." This is a very interesting related article: May 6, 2004
PSYCHOLOGY
Simulated Prison in '71 Showed a Fine Line Between `Normal' and `Monster'
By JOHN SCHWARTZ
The military, if nothing else, is an organization which prides itself on giving and taking orders. Nothing is done without direction--just like that reality show about boot camp last year, which I watched in its entirety as I was fascinated with how far people go in sublimating their individuality and submitting to authority. The problem with abuse arises from a dubious relation to the value of autonomous human integrity--the sense that someone else is like you, and therefore deserving of the same respect: respect for basic human dignity.

Fat man lookin' in a blade of steel
Thin man lookin' at his last meal
Hollow man lookin' in a cottonfield
For dignity

Wise man lookin' in a blade of grass
Young man lookin' in the shadows that pass
Poor man lookin' through painted glass
For dignity

Somebody got murdered on New Year's Eve
Somebody said dignity was the first to leave
I went into the city, went into the town
Went into the land of the midnight sun

Searchin' high, searchin' low
Searchin' everywhere I know
Askin' the cops wherever I go
Have you seen dignity?

Blind man breakin' out of a trance
Puts both his hands in the pockets of chance
Hopin' to find one circumstance
Of dignity

I went to the wedding of Mary-lou
She said ÒI don't want nobody see me talkin' to youÓ
Said she could get killed if she told me what she knew
About dignity

I went down where the vultures feed
I would've got deeper, but there wasn't any need
Heard the tongues of angels and the tongues of men
Wasn't any difference to me

Chilly wind sharp as a razor blade
House on fire, debts unpaid
Gonna stand at the window, gonna ask the maid
Have you seen dignity?

Drinkin' man listens to the voice he hears
In a crowded room full of covered up mirrors
Lookin' into the lost forgotten years
For dignity

Met Prince Phillip at the home of the blues
Said he'd give me information if his name wasn't used
He wanted money up front, said he was abused
By dignity

Footprints runnin' cross the silver sand
Steps goin' down into tattoo land
I met the sons of darkness and the sons of light
In the bordertowns of despair

Got no place to fade, got no coat
I'm on the rollin' river in a jerkin' boat
Tryin' to read a note somebody wrote
About dignity

Sick man lookin' for the doctor's cure
Lookin' at his hands for the lines that were
And into every masterpiece of literature
for dignity

Englishman stranded in the blackheart wind
Combin' his hair back, his future looks thin
Bites the bullet and he looks within
For dignity

Someone showed me a picture and I just laughed
Dignity never been photographed
I went into the red, went into the black
Into the valley of dry bone dreams

So many roads, so much at stake
So many dead ends, I'm at the edge of the lake
Sometimes I wonder what it's gonna take
To find dignity

Copyright Bobby D. © 1991 Special Rider Music

Thank you Betsy Devine, HOWEVER (and that's a BIG HOWEVER thar...;-), ummmmm...

I would only add:

I am very unhappy with the ... humiliating naked jailbirds for the fun of it ... [and found it] wasn't really so surprising.

@"Miles Wolbe", I SOMEwhat agree that THE LESSON bears repeating:

"'Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature... and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions?' - Dostoevski"

Now, precisely right there where you see people who "'Imagine that are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end" when in actual fact you see that they are creating a fabric of happiness for THEMSELVES

Well, there you see those opposing common folks, mostly.

Snake-oil "salespeople" abide there, but they have plenty of "good company" to go around.

As "Bobby D." (Bobby D??, could it be?!?) takes a swing and a miss at!

Iow, if there's still some corn-fusion about this basically being about "parental issues" and "struggling with/against/for 'authority'"...

Well, I'm sorry to disabuse anyone, but my understanding is that there's "a little more to it" than such-a superficial perspective. My understanding is that it's more a case of flipping between "hate-enough-to-kill" and "love-enough-to-respect" is rather hard ta-do for anybody (including parents, of course).

Especially under fire.

This is my understanding although I have not, personally, had the occasion to die for my country or anything else thus far. (So there is at least THAT muchuvan exact-same-perspective from anybody reading or writing on these issues, btw, right?)

My further "understanding" is that it's difficult to take POWs when those trying to kill you and those on your side and civilians of any nationality are pretty effective and do so. Goal being to survive a little longer, from what I have heard of war anyway...

Sorry if I'm disabusing anybody too harshly...)-;

One more of the "absolute" stupidest ideas posted, right along with one-a the absolute" best..

..contra-juxtaposed by the same person, funny that...)-;

"Now, my friends here and the people that I speak with don't seem to understand the magnitude of what's going on."

- Peter

This is so, especially Peter himself is is so full of what-he-calls-humility that he reprimands the real American people so easily.

I'm mean.. given....

Funny that these are among THE best "friends" of the real American people Small wonder most Americans spend inordinate focus wondering who their friends actually are.

@Dennis: Excuse me?!? I just now noticed where you were hiding out at. You having such-a good understanding of "immediately-urgent and short-lived" are all these legal terms the World Court uses, how's life on the front-lines of Iraq these days??

I didn't have time to check around your blog much, but wish you the best of luck there!!

(And if Dennis is NOT, in actually fact, posting his blog from the front lines, then I wonder how well he does, in actual fact, understand??)

:

Bah.

Rahul Dave gets it. What has happened in the Iraqi prison shouldn't be surprising to anyone who grew up with two feet on American soil, was raised in American schools, or has worked in American business. At the very core of the very finest thread of the fabric of the American soldiers involved is the cross-generational legacy of slavery and color coding upon which this country was built.

Different day, new tree.

Due process. That is what is missing here. You can't just hold people without charging them and providing access to some type of legal system. So without that how the hell are you going to make the leap that we'll torture captive X? Surely someone at the end of the torture isn't going to have a lawyer. So who gets to say he/she is guilty, knows something, etc and should be tortured?

MAYBE... MAYBEE... if there was a multi-level judge-based system to review requests to torture you might be able to go there. I.e. similar to the warrent system. With of course access to these records through normal FOIA process. And of course standards for what can and can not be done. Videos must be taken. Records kept. Etc.

But even that I think is morally wrong. I'd rather die from a terrorist's bomb that subvert our ideals even more than they have been.

JayT: thanks for your comment. The whole poing of the Dostoevski quote is that no decent person would consent to be the architect of such a sick plan, let alone support torture under any other circumstances.

From the words of a neighbor/kin of Lynndie, the lil girl with the cigarette machine gunning at the prisoners' dicks:

http://joi.ito.com/archives/2004/05/07/some_people_dont_think_us_soldiers_did_anything_wrong_in_abu_ghraib.html

Colleen Kesner, Lynndie's homie from the trailer park, puts it this way:

"To the country boys here, if you're a different nationality, a different race, you're sub-human. That's the way girls like Lynndie are raised.

"Tormenting Iraqis, in her mind, would be no different from shooting a turkey. Every season here you're hunting something. Over there, they're hunting Iraqis."

I REST MY CASE.

Jeneane,

Please free to rest your case any time. Although not pointless, most wisdoms of any kind NOT ALL WISDOMS BUT MOST tend to come from places other than trailer parks.

Some may see that as racist, but I believe it's a statistical fact as well.

Btw, I emailed with Rahul (and forgive my manners, "Looooooong time" and all that...;-), iirc, and no he doesn't get it a lot here.

Some, afaict (as fer as I can tell), but not a lot.

@Miles, "JayT: thanks for your comment." Likewise. "The whole poing of the Dostoevski quote is that no decent person would consent to be the architect of such a sick plan,"

That's sort-a the way I took it: As a tautology. No, no decent person would consent to be the architect of any sick plans, or any plans they thought were completely sick for themselves and their "friends and family".

Nup. That's true.

"let alone support torture under any other circumstances."

Right, Doestoevsky might prefer that not the li'lest tiny little baby mosquito would get tortured by humanity and killed, too, I dunno. Shame about that Rosholnikov [sic] or WHOever, in _Crime and Punishment_.

Times are different these days, no?

"Under any circumstances torture would not be supported".. Is that the jist of this lame argument?? Then why do so many non-Americans support the torture of US civilians, or speak so softly in that regard?

Why do none care about the Kurdish Govt official, I wonder, who was murdered??

Those living are supposed to be allowed some rights, as well as the dead. But apparently the 4 or 5 murdered recently (down in Southern Iraq, or maybe Saudi Arabia iirc which I don't.. non-Americans, iirc), their deaths are somehow quite a bit less than that of the Iraqi Soldiers, some of whom I understand died. A very small percentage, iirc.

Getting back to my original point:

"If you believe, as I do, that the war against terror can't be won solely on the battlefield, then preventing the war from destroying the possibility of peace is especially trenchant."

Which I do agree with, as well as:

"I am willing to admit that there are circumstances in which torture is permissible, just as I think sometimes we have to kill people. And I'm willing to admit that what we apparently put the Abu Ghraib prisoners through wasn't nearly as bad as the torture that's routine in many other countries.

I'm sorry if I find these both painfully obvious, Dr. Weinberger. Your write a very strong conclusion, but this conclusion was logically refuted by some parts of the rest of this blog.

At least it appears that most-a the commenters here were not persuaded much, for whatever reason (or insanity).

In my observation.

For example, do you (Dr. Weinberger or anybody else) read the Yahoo headlines, or equivalent, and do you believe President Bush is from the left or the right?!?

So you appear to confound yourself when you look for someone from the right to agree "Torture should only be used in the direst of circumstances? Torture should never be a cause for the exulting shown in the photos? The people responsible for allowing the wholesale torture at Abu Ghraib need to be punished severely, quickly and publicly not only for the sake of justice but to try to limit some of the damage the practice has done to our war on terror? "

At least this is what I'm reading that Mr. Bush IS saying, Dr. Weinberger, and I believe I've quoted you correctly as saying basically same.

JayT, Jeneane,

I hope I am wrong in this case, really...

JayT, I didnt get any email..(dont forget to take the nospam off.._

David,

I agree with your points about why torture is wrong, but there's one big one that I'd add.

Torture doesn't just humiliate the victim. It degrades the torturer and those who have allowed it to happen.

I can't prove it (though there might well be studies that have looked at the question) but I'd believe that taking place in, or supporting, either actively or tacitly, activities that go so far beyond the pale of civilized behavior will change a person's own beliefs and attitudes for ill.

Very few people want to wake up in the morning and think, "Wow, in my work, I try to disintegrate others' human dignity!" The wish to keep a positive self-image and avoid cognitive dissonance would instead start a "they deserve what I did to them" mental process that dehumanizes the victims. From there, I think you'd have the real possibility of a slippery slope of dehumanization of everybody who fits--or could fit--the category of "other."

As another reader commented, torture doesn't even guarantee the information about "the bomb that's going to kill thousands" would be accurate. If the bomber is guilty, he or she could very well lie. If the bomber is innocent, torture could well elicit a false confession. A very dubious payoff for a very high price.

Rahul,

Rest easy, you're wrong. Sure there is racism in this war, like there is racism all over the place. It would be incorrect to view this war as primarily a war of US racists over non-US racists. That would be an over-simplification so vast.. well, almost unbelievably over-simplified, to say the least.

(And Icbw, the email I referred to was about 2 or 3 years ago, iirc, and I may not. Thaz what I meant by "Looooong time", but I may recollect incorrectly.)

AnnF, where you say "I can't prove it (though there might well be studies that have looked at the question) but I'd believe that taking place in, or supporting, either actively or tacitly, activities that go so far beyond the pale of civilized behavior will change a person's own beliefs and attitudes for ill."

I'm nearly certain there have been plenty of academic studies on these subjects. For what benefit, I'm not sure.

And I agree with an AWFUL LOT you wrote other than the final paragraph, which is pretty-much entirely overemphasized.

I would ask then, Ann, why do you degrade the dignity of the American, British, Polish and other valiant Soldiers, in your very writing here?? I mean, if you actually know what your writing about?

You, or anyone "AnnF", wanna ask me why I'm intentionally being so humiliating to folks posting here??? Please do, and I'll consider that some might wonder by answering:

It hardly compares to the hypocricy of most all of the other comments here.

Iow, AnnF, yes torture degrades the torturer.

Yes, torture degrades anyone who "allows" it to happen.

These are both true and so obvious.

So why don't some-a you all quit torturing me and others with your ignorance, then?

Well, speaking of ignorant words and ignorant works, some more than others.. (including my own words and works earlier today).

David called on America to boldly lead just earlier, (but later toned it down to "a stump speech", iirc,). Now here I find another area that needs help.
(Speaking of things I'd like to put a full-stop on.)-;

"'Today's bomb attack was carried out by those people who were behind other terrorist attacks in Karachi,' Sheikh said."

There are too many places right now, David et al, where the terrorists of the kind pictured in Iraq (tho not the same) are operating way too freely. As I pointed to previously.

Weinberger, your claims that conservatives condone torture are deeply offensive, leading me to believe that you only roll around in his fit of self-examination in order to get off a few cheap shots.

Conservatives are telling the Left to get off its moral high horse on this issue not because we feel that it's OK to horse-whip Arabs, but because we feel you're overplaying their hand, again.

And yes, we wonder where all this new-found outrage was when Saddam was in charge, just as we wonder where your new-found reverence for Vietnam service was while the war was actually raging over there - not because we condone torture, but because we doubt your sincerity.

In the overall scheme of things, I'd rather be thought insensitive than hypocritical.

I'd despair of finding middle ground myself, if I took Noam Chomsky and his followers as a starting point on the left. The only outrage I'd direct at you, is frustration with being automatically tarred yet again with the tired Rush Limbaugh brush. Talk about taking the easy out! As a Republican, I can promise you he's not my poster boy, he's yours.

Have you surrendered your own position to a single self-annointed voice on the left? If not, I suggest you pause to ponder the idea that measuring the fullness of your own views against a rank & narrow minded stereotype is not an auspicious way to start. Not if you hope to join those of us -- already in the center -- who share an almost universal revulsion over the current revalations of abuse. It's you, in fact, who may be further off the center than you think.

Torture does not work. It produces answers of dubious quality. It leaves dead or maimed and makes enemies of the friends and family. The same objective can be obtained by other means. Unless you wish to incite, enrage and enflame the populace. Then it can be quite effective.

The invasion of Iraq was an act of self defense. Waiting until the other guy fires the first shot before drawing your gun is stupid. We could not afford to wait until we were struck again.

I dunno... Mr. Bennett (hm..) might be interested in Dave R's comments on the other recent thread... And would add I see little difference between insensitivity and hypocrisy, when both are done in the extreme.

Uhhh... "JM Hanes", Talk about despairing and then taking the tired brush of Noam Chomsky to beat all the Democrats with. What gives?

Yes, the center would be a good place for every Rupublican to be looking for, also.. those who anoint themselves at having found it, especially.

Too much dust, still...;-)

Mebbe laterz, mebbe not?

Uhhhh... This torture is working on me, for one thing. For another... uhhhh...

David,

I haven't seen anyone on the right or the left condoning torture. I don't think that is the point of departure between the right and the left.

I think the point of departure is how much coercion of prisoners is acceptable and when does it slip into the catergory of torture?

With the right, I think there is a cost/benefit analysis of how much coercion is acceptable and with the left it is viewed more in terms of moral absolutes.

People in Iraq are using roadside bombs to target Americans. Americans are being kidnapped, carjacked and occasionally burned to death with their corpes hung from bridges. In this context people in the right are more willing to push the limits regarding coersive practices regarding prisoners. They are also sympathetic that in an absurd reality like Iraq, people may do absurd acts. Its a war and wars are ugly. One more reason to do what is necessary to win it quickly and decisively.

Meanwhile people on the left have perfect moral certainty on this issue. Torture is wrong period. They resent that these acts are being done in their name. They side with your general point of the importance of treating the enemy with dignity.

The second point of departure between the left in the right in the practice of conducting a war. The left wants to conduct war virtuously. The right views war as messy and the only virtue in war is to win it quickly. (Was it moral to nuke Nagasaki? It killed lots of civilians but it also sped up the end of the war - so there attitude is much more ends justify the means).

As long Iraq is unstable and the US is being called in to bomb various cities to pacify them, we are creating enemies that will hate us. The sooner we pacify the country the sooner we can leave. If coercing information from the prisoners can speed up the war, than some coercion is justified.

The issue is how much coercion is too much?

Jay T --

What, you haven't had yourself (litmus) tested?

One really sloooooow news day, I decided to take every "where-do-you-fit-in-the-political-spectrum" quiz I could find on the web, and I pretty consistently turned up sharing a niche with Ghandi. In my experience, however, the center is almost always self-annointed, YMMV.

As for what gives on Chomsky, I'm happy to clarify. I'm saying that tarring everyone right of center with the Rush brush is just as ridiculous as tarring the entire left with Noam.

Ed, nicely thought and put. Thanks.

JM, the Republican reaction has overall been along the lines you suggest. I'm happy to be wrong on this.

Rush does speak for more of the right than Chomsky does for the left, though, don't you think? Rush is mainstream by any definition - one of the most popular shows on radio - whereas Noam gets invited to some college campuses.

Better late than never, I suppose. Conservatives were complaining about torture in Iraq when Saddam was doing it, and now that West Virginia trailer-park residents are involved, the caring people of the left are suddenly outraged. That's good, of course, don't get me wrong.

Let's remember that all it took for the left to get concerned about the Iraqis was a little regime change, so there's another reason the invasion was a good idea.

I see this statement and these questions, unanswered from up-towards-the-beginning, above:

"Is torture going to be the final breaking point between the two sides in this country? Is it the issue that will in fact solidify our national sensibilities into two and only two sides: You hate torture or you think it's great that we're finally getting tough on the bad guys?"

No. Not so far.

Nor did it break 9/11 nor in My Lai, completely. Yes, there have been many Fundamental "final breaking points", like Auchwitz and Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Democracy.. Freedom.. These can and do break.

"Is the right willing to admit that: Torture should only be used in the direst of circumstances? Torture should never be a cause for the exulting shown in the photos? The people responsible for allowing the wholesale torture at Abu Ghraib need to be punished severely, quickly and publicly not only for the sake of justice but to try to limit some of the damage the practice has done to our war on terror?"

Again, starting by breaking down into hawks/doves/snakes nor lambs/lions is a false step, imv.

Can we get even to that common ground? Can we as a nation say that we abhor torture, except in the rarest of cases? That we do not believe in the institutionalizing of torture? That we will fight it around the world? That we believe in the rule of law and that no one is above the law? That we believe in treating even our enemies with dignity? That we support the established international conventions for treating prisoners? That we are sorry about what went on at Abu Ghraib?"

If you observe, these common grounds are what we walk on with all the words we write, right? To different extents.

I would like to discuss more, but I gather the technologists pretty-much have a corner-on-the-market of both the markets and the political wisdoms, these days...;-)

So I'm leaning away either from or towards, a technology discussion with technology deed-leaders, if I could.

Forgot to even edit this properly, the first time (thus, I wish I could find a qualified editor).

The statement I forgot to clip was a self-aggrandizing one. I was even going to put it in bold, but that would not-play-well even more here:

"You won't find the middle by taking the first step as dividing things into left and right."

(I'm not re-reading the rest of my blather here, but couldn't help but notice that much...)-;

David,

I agree with everything you say, however exactly who are you arguing with? Limbaugh is hardly a good guage of the right on this or any other matter, and while I deplore the comment you reference, it distorts what he was saying. Now I hardly have any sympathy for the blowhard so let him suffer the slings and arrows, but let us not tar the right as a whole with such sympathies.

Now many of course have now made that point to you, but what about the other side of the stereotype. When did the left become all fired up about torture? Not just with Saddam, but in Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam, etc. The excuses for it on the left have been far more tortured than anything Rush said. I could go on, but I get tired of such self righteous posturing from the left when they decide that deploring bad things is somehow the hallmark of what it means to be a leftist rather than something most people feel.

Lance, I agree that Rush doesn't talk for all of the right, but I don't think I distorted what he said. In fact, it was worse, at least from the transcripts I read on his site.

As for the left not objecting to torture until now: I disagree. Amnesty International is generally considered to be a darling of the left, and I can't say as I've heard a single lefty defense of Saddam et al. I'm sure there are some rattling around, but there are nut jobs all over the political spectrum.

To me your most important point is the danger of the self-righteous assumption that only one side deplores bad things. Absolutely right, and my conflation of the right with the DittoHeads was wrong. So, I'd rewrite my first paragraph to contrast the left with the Rush wing of the Republican Party.

David --

I'm not sure what Republicans, aside from Limbaugh, you're citing, because from what I've seen revulsion, outrage & concern have been pretty universal. Are you sure you're not just assuming that anyone who minimizes what went on must obviously hail from the right? Or that anyone who struggles to put it all in a larger context, must be an apologist for either abusers or Administration? Those folks are out there, but I hardly think they're emblematic of the right.

Don't you think maybe a plea for centrism is pretty self-defeating when you start out essentially assuming that the left takes the issue seriously (up on the moral high ground?) while the (morally feckless) right just thinks boys (or girls) will be boys? In my experience, if you're looking for consensus, you don't start out dividing people into camps, and you don't start out insulting the people you claim you're trying to bring onboard.

On the day Rush gets elected you can tell me who he speaks for. He looks a lot more like a convenient whipping boy to me. He's outrageous on purpose -- how long would he last if he really toned it down? As for Chomsky, his following is probably bigger than you think. He sure gets quoted more often on the boards I frequent than Rush ever does. However, if you insist on being represented by someone more popular, we can substitute Howard Stern who is definitely mainstreaming liberal politics these days.

I ran across this (wholly unscientific) list of the Top 100 Political Websites which might be of interest -- if you can bring yourself to ignore the fact that it was posted on a self-proclaimed rightwingers site. : ) You've got Indymedia right up there with Rush, Zmag (a Chomskyite homebase) paired up with the Weekly Standard (which is where the dump Trent Lott movement kicked into high gear, BTW). Scroll down a bit and you'll see the odious Ann Coulter (fired by National Review, BTW, so much for inhabiting the conservative mainstream) keeping company with Michael Moore.

I suspect the left's impression of a monolithic right derives from the fact that the right has always been more disciplined politically. As the minority party for so long, they've had to be, if they wanted to get anything accomplished -- something the left has yet to figure out. Now that the Republicans are in the majority, you're beginning to see some of the issues which divide its membership too -- if you're looking.

So here's my 2¢: if you want to meet me in the center, don't start out donning labels and telling me what I think. Lay out your own position, and ask if I agree. Otherwise you'll just end up confirming your own assumptions: only the "wingnuts" will reply because the people who agree with you are just too damn tired of fighting through the stereotypes to say so.

Appreciate your willingness to engage though. You've issued more of an invitation than most, which is why I decided to respond.

Well, I guess I was partially wrong about "JM Hanes", as I assumed he was one-a the "wingnuts". However, I'll still observe that Ghandi was a non-American Indian, of decades ago.

I know for a fact that he was not Republican, and I think it's quite NATURAL a computer could be used to find the similarities between a person these days and Ghandi!

Mebbe we can look up some quotes by Einstein or Nostradamus, to sort more-a these particular kinds-a questions out?

This 'd be one wingnut signing outta this thread, since little what-I-call serious-discussion was to be found, much! (Didn't see much in the way of answers to my specific questions, so see no need to follow-up with any more, right?)

;-D

Yes, David, there were some complaints about Saddam's torture of the Iraqis before the liberation, but they were never accompanied by the suggestion that the rest of the world should actually do something about it, like, um, regime change. There was a similar dynamic to feminist complaints about the maltreatment of women in Taliban Afghanistan, which promptly dried up as soon as the first American soldier's boot hit the ground over there.

There seems to be something about the left that prefers whining to action.

Uhhhhh... ...

"There was a similar dynamic to feminist complaints about the maltreatment of women in Taliban Afghanistan, which promptly dried up as soon as the first American soldier's boot hit the ground over there."

Excuse me, but the facts are otherwise.

Granted you may not hear as much "whining/moaning" about the Afghanistan Women, but I doubt the amount FROM the Afghanistan Women has gone down.. Hopefully it is still pretty strong. At any rate, it didn't "dry up" during the 2001-2 phases of that battle, not in America nor Afghanistan either one.

From what I recall.

There seems so little interest in the facts of the matter these days...

Is this legal according to the Geneva Conventions??

"Al-Sadr's militia launched attacks in Basra and Amarah in an apparent attempt to open up new fronts after another cleric called for a jihad, or holy war, against British troops and promised rewards for the capture of coalition soldiers."

It sounds like bartering for human-prisoners, to me.

Glad to see this man escape anyhoo...!

Surely there are a LOT of illegal or questionable activities going on:

"The uprising in Basra on Saturday was the strongest show of force in days, with hundreds of black-garbed and masked fighters massing on the streets and attacking passing British patrols. At least two Iraqis were killed and four British soldiers wounded, a British military spokesman said.

British troops repelled an attack on the governor's building..."

And a Iraqi child was killed by "a projectile". I'm sorry, and am sure that is illegal also, according to the Geneva Conventions presumably.

What else is there to discuss on these matters??

Mark Bowden wrote a 16,000-word piece in the Atlantic Monthly last October, called
"The Dark Art of Interrogation"
It's a worthwhile read on this subject. Bowden's experts would probably argue that the torture we're learning about in Iraq (and G'mo, Afghanistan), is too sadistic to be useful for extracting information.

Here's my analysis on Abu Ghraib.

Jon

Have you seen this - it was bound to happen
www.itorture.com