Rewriting The Torture Book
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Foreign Policy, The War On Terrorism, The WorldRemember the McCain Amendment? It made sure that our government defined torture in an appropriate manner. It passed with overwhelming support.
The Pentagon has decided to omit from new detainee policies a key tenet of the Geneva Convention that explicitly bans “humiliating and degrading treatment,” according to knowledgeable military officials, a step that would mark a further, potentially permanent, shift away from strict adherence to international human rights standards.
Oh well. It was a nice try John. Better luck next time.
UPDATE:
John Cole’s words. My thoughts.
The next time an Abu Ghraib happens (and there will be a next), there will be no wiggle room for Cheney et. al., and those who blindly support this administration are going to have to find new ways to call us all traitors or pussies because we want safeguards put in place for the humane treatment of prisoners.
Oh, they’ll find ways John. They always do and people always fall for it.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 6th, 2006 and is filed under Foreign Policy, The War On Terrorism, The World. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
June 6th, 2006 at 2:12 am
Beyond the emotion and the politics, there’s a legalistic and ethical context and a set of footnotes to this, and it will have to be up to someone who is neither a BDS sufferer or a “blind supporter” to point it out. That way he can get called both a “pants-wetter” and a “traitor.” I’ve already done my quota for the week. I’ll let Jeff Goldstein, blogger most hated by the left, do it:
I don’t agree with everything he has to say on the topic. But that looks like half of an agreeable start for a “center” position. Probably better for that purpose than ranting about the “they” and how evil/stupid “they” are. If that’s your purpose.
June 6th, 2006 at 9:27 am
Remember, eating a prisoner’s peanut butter right in front of him, or poking his brow with an inflated doctor’s glove, or shouting nasty things at him while he wears panties over his face is morally equivalent to hanging a prisoner upside-down and beating him with electric cables, or hooking a car battery up to his scrotum.
Especially if you are doing so to extract information that can save innocent lives, rather than doing it for punishment or forcing a confession. Correct?
June 6th, 2006 at 10:02 am
“They” are people who would call those who oppose torture traitors. The blanket is apt for all it applies to. And those who fit that mold are neither evil nor stupid. They’re just scared, and a frightened animal is always the most dangerous kind.
For the record, I believe that this is the center’s position:
June 6th, 2006 at 4:21 pm
So much for the virtues of “moral relativism”, when “moral authority” can be used as a talking point to support a position. Is such talk a tacit philosophical agreement that the U.S. could have had the “moral authority” to depose the torturous tyrant?
I agree completely BTW that torture undermines our moral authority. It just surprises me to hear the “moral authority” agrument being utilized by a proud, self-proclaimed moral relativist.
I guess it all depend on who gets the authority to pick the morality, heh? I’ll predict the retort:
“Torture is torture and everybody knows its bad.” This will be similar to a recent nonsensical, cyclical definition in the context of slavery (”Genocide is genocide.”)
June 6th, 2006 at 5:18 pm
Do such creatures exist? Or are they a kind of boogeymen meant to stoke the fires of indignation on one side and make any other voices shut up by intimidation?
Do you have evidence that there is a set of people, large or small, who say such things? “Anyone who opposes torture is a traitor.” I Googled that and got “did not match any documents.”
Are they larger or more important than other groups of people you could be noticing or addressing, e.g. the U.S. military, the U.S. government, mainstream Republicans, independent voters, concerned citizens, etc.?
June 6th, 2006 at 8:56 pm
Yes, I have evidence:
Cal, defend that statement, please.
June 6th, 2006 at 10:11 pm
Looks like a lot of hyperbole and sarcastic exaggeration to me. Do you think it was meant literally and seriously? And where’s the bit about “traitors?”
June 6th, 2006 at 10:59 pm
Cal, you’re a pussy.
June 7th, 2006 at 9:48 am
What’s the matter, Robot Boy? Couldn’t come up with a defense, so you decided to be immature instead? You won’t win arguments that way, not here.
June 7th, 2006 at 10:38 am
PB,
No, it’s Cal who didn’t offer a defense – I know it, you know it, he knows it.
Cal wanted an example, large or small, of a person stating anyone not on board with torture is treasonous. I provided an example, where the person explicitly states the people who don’t support torture would rather mollycoddle members of AQ – an act reasonable people would agree is treasonous. And Cal just dismissively waved his hand and sayid, “Hyperbole.”
Is that intellectual honesty? (I have a funny feeling Cal would do the same to any other examples I gave. Why not? It’s easier than acknowledging any unpleasant truths)
The fact I would even have to point this out just shows how bankrupt you two are.
June 7th, 2006 at 11:01 am
You Googled a specific phrase and didn’t come back with anything? Well, I guess I’m wrong then…
Come on Cal, you’re just playing semantic games now, but I’ll play along. There have been all sorts of “treason” accusations from the right concerning torture, secret prisons, etc. If somebody is being accused of treason, they are also being accused of being a traitor. At least in my world that’s how it works.
And I don’t know…how about Ann Coulter? Michael Savage? Rush Limbaugh? Sean Hannity? I’m sure you could find some “traitor” remarks in some of their radio show transcripts. Coulter even has a book entitled ‘Treason.’ I don’t think it mentions torture, but I’d hazard a guess that she thinks those who expose our tactics would be considered a traitor.
By the way, Gold Star for Robot Boy…what’s your problem? No name calling here. One more time and you’re banned.
June 7th, 2006 at 11:05 am
Newsmax:
Jeff Gannon:
June 7th, 2006 at 11:13 am
Noted, and apologies. Your board, your rules – I’ll comply.
I guess I’m accustomed to John Cole’s’s blog, where name-calling is the norm.
June 7th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
Cal, your occasional moralistic finger-wagging is different in degree, not in kind – “If you were really serious about X you’d care about Y” is not uncommon from you and is essentially the same message I have no right to object because I’m not morally ’serious’ enough by your definition. ‘Traitor’ is just taking the arguement to the nth degree, but it’s the same attempt at dismissiveness.
And now you’re adding the argument from ignorance – “nobody actually says that” you say. Somehow that logic doesn’t seem to convince you when you are making a point about Leftists and Chomskyites.
June 7th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
I’m very uncomfortable indeed with the revision.
Part of the problem in general–indeed, including with Geneva–is the phrase “humiliating and degrading.” I sure wish we could get that pinned down quite a bit more.
There are humiliating things that are not torture, and even degrading things (the panties example above might fall into the latter, for example). Yet, I think there’s good reason to be concerned if something like “waterboarding” gets pushed into the H&D category, and, in fact, there have been those who argue that’s where that belongs. I disagree.
I do fully understand the differences between state actors, non-state actors, combatants and non-combatants, and so forth. I also see the different nature of the threat we’re battling.
Personally, those things do not outweigh the wrongness of actual torture, in my book.
While I do not think there is a large group of people who equate “opposing” the use of torture by either our military and/or other government agents (or the outsourcing of that) with treason/being a traitor, which some of the hyperbole out there suggests or implies, I also disagree with Cal in that I think there absolutely have been instances of that. It’s not an empty charge (though, again, it’s been overstated, in my opinion). I think It’s not about googling a specific phrase, or a specific phrase.
I’m not very interested in the debate over traitor/treason charges; I think that whole thing has been overhyped on both sides. From my point of view, it’s a distraction from the bigger issues–unless and until someone actually gets brought up on formal charges of treason. Until then, it’s just name-calling and, however offense, no real threat to anything or anyone.
But I will say this: If, indeed, opposing torture WERE to be a benchmark for being a traitor or treasonous, then please put me at the front of the line. In that case, I am obliged to accept the label and will accept the consequences.
June 7th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
Jimmy said:
“Remember, eating a prisoner’s peanut butter right in front of him, or poking his brow with an inflated doctor’s glove, or shouting nasty things at him while he wears panties over his face is morally equivalent to hanging a prisoner upside-down and beating him with electric cables, or hooking a car battery up to his scrotum.”
Does anyone honestly believe that calling a man names while he has panties on his head is going to save innocent lives? I agree that degradation and humiliation are not the same as torture, but why in the hell would we specifically ask that our military be able to make fun of the prisoners? And please don’t say that if you put panties on a man’s head for enough days in a row, he will eventually talk.
June 7th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
Jeez, how hard can this be? All I want to see is someone saying “opposition to American torture of terror suspects is treason,” or even “putting safeguards in place for the humane treatment of prisoners is the desire of a traitor.”
I bet I could find it if I looked hard enough. But I wanted to see if it could be found by the people who whine that this is a widespread and important reaction on the “right.” And who base their political stances on this perceived counter-attack. I want to know if they really have grounds for that reaction or they’re just playing with boogeymen.
So Robot Boy takes a swing at it. Good for him. But the first thing he gets is some comment out of a thread which sarcastically imagines a “leftian” paradise for terror suspects. Except it doesn’t say anything about the poster’s attitude toward the conditions they endure now, and the word “treason” never appears in it.
He steps up to the plate again and finds right wing extremists crying “treason” against the media. Now he’s got “treason.” But the topic is not torture, but media printing of leaked information on “secret government or military operation[s],” including the existence of secret prisons. It’s the publication, not the opposition, that these people are describing as treason.
Pooh is pissed at me for something I can’t understand, some vaguely alluded-to transgression and seems to be laboring under the mistaken impression that just because I ask a question I’m ignorant of the answer. He sounds like my ex-wife and seems to want to say I want to say opposition to treason is torture. Asking for proof of an assertion now is cast as “argument from ignorance.”
Justin insists, “There have been all sorts of ‘treason’ accusations from the right concerning torture, secret prisons, etc.” But still won’t present any. He caps it with the astonishing statement:
So because he thinks she doesn’t say it, he finds that evidence she does mean it.
Like I said, if it’s so prevalent, where are the examples?
I honestly figured someone would be able to find one. I am sure they exist, too. Buried in some comments thread from what may or may not be a spoof, perhaps in some of the more excitable right-side bloggers on a bad day. Perhaps even in the transcripts of one of those wingnut radio hosts whose names I don’t know.
But if you’re going to take that as the entire point of this debate, if you’d rather talk about “them” than about policy and interrogation and terrorism, then you’re just climbing into one fortress and chunking rocks at the fortress on the extreme of the other side. Then you’re pretty much no different from Atrios or DKos or take your pick. And we already have a bazillion of those. And they don’t really help anything.
June 7th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
That’s a good point I’d love to see someone try to answer. Just because we’re following the letter of the rules doesn’t mean we’re being true to who we wish to be.
June 7th, 2006 at 8:05 pm
Jeez, how hard can this be? All I want to see is someone saying “opposition to American torture of terror suspects is treason,� or even “putting safeguards in place for the humane treatment of prisoners is the desire of a traitor.�
You know, I just spent a serious chunk of time looking for the type of example that Cal is seeking, and which I, myself, was sure had taken place (though, AGAIN, I never thought it was widespread). By saying “type of example,” I don’t mean the literal words in his last comment, nor the original one. I mean various combinations of words and phrases using the obvious words (for example, traitor, treason, torture, oppose, against, left, aid and comfort, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.) that could reasonably be expected to bring up some examples, or allusions to such examples that could then be followed up on via chasing links. I also specifically googled the names of a number of people whom I had the impression had said something in the neighborhood of of what’s being charged.
You know what? Sonuvabitch. I’ve yet to find a single instance. Not one. And the reason I’m not including the “names” of the number of people to whom I allude above is because, as it turns out so far, I would be unjust to do so.
I’m not saying I’m the best googler or researcher in the world, or that there’s not something buried. But I’m not a rank amateur or without some real talent in this area–and if it’s there, it’s at least not so obvious, and certainly not widespread, as to indicate a huge problem. It’s a rare, rare day when I don’t pretty darn quickly hit upon something real close to what I’m seeking, if not the thing itself. I’ve been at it, now, for at least 1-1/2 hours.
Now, I did find instances of complaints of being ACCUSED of being a traitor/treasonous, at least tangentially, in this area–but there was no specific cite, of quote or person. I even found links (which I didn’t follow) that suggested people were complaining of being ACCUSED of ACCUSING someone of being a traitor/treasonous.
But neither of these things are the same. They’re just not.
Now, in the process of doing this, I’m beginning to develop an insight of WHY I was positive there were such instances, enough so to use the word “absolutely,” which, it is now clear to me, I had no business doing. (Because the specific things/people of whom I was thinking–the articles–proved NOT to be what I remembered. I was flat-out wrong, and thank goodness I didn’t whip out names in my previous comment, so I don’t have to feel outright ashamed of myself–yet. Chastened and humbled are something else again.) I’m not going to go into that insight yet, because, as I said, it’s developing and–in any case–this is a heck of along comment as it is.
Also, the evidence may very well exist. The people that I was thinking of may even very well turn out to have said what I thought I remember–but in a different place or forum, and I just haven’t stumbled upon it yet.
But the plain fact is that I CAN’T document the basis (what I thought was a valid basis) for what I wrote above. Or an alternate one that’s direct, as opposed to conflation, or personal extrapolation, or assumption. At least not so far. That’s a problem, at least for me.
Note: I’m going to cross-post this comment back at DWM, because I first read a version of Cal’s “thought they’d do better” response over there. I chose to respond here first, because here is where I used that word–that WORD–absolutely.
June 7th, 2006 at 8:22 pm
Maybe “we’re” not as evil/stupid as “they” think we are. Maybe there’s hope for an American dialogue.
June 7th, 2006 at 8:24 pm
Incidentally, I like pussy. It’s one of life’s great pleasures. When someone calls me that, I don’t feel complimented, but I don’t feel particularly insulted, either. Like if someone called me “pint of Guinness” or “two-week vacation.” Robot Boy, however, evidently feels it as an insult. I guess he doesn’t like pussy.
June 8th, 2006 at 12:20 am
Cal,
The Germans have a saying: “Too clever is dumb.”
June 8th, 2006 at 1:40 am
But dumb also is dumb. Always.
June 9th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
If only those exact words will do, then you probably won’t find them outside of blog comments. If the spirit of the thing is what you’re after, then you may want to try these on for size.
Bill O’Reilly
Freepers
Talk Radio
Jawa Report
The liberal msm
Oh, and there were a couple of times when Karl Rove flat out stated that anyone who disagreed with the Administration’s handling of various Iraq policies were anti-American lefties who wanted to give Osama Bin Laden and his friends a big hug. (That’s aid and comfort to the enemy, aka treason, for those of you who aren’t keeping up.)