The Rude Pundit makes a rude point here: two American soldiers have been captured by the bad guys in Iraq. I can, in good conscience, sit here and hope that they are treated in a civilized fashion by their captors, and are eventually released unharmed; this will, of course, make American treatment of Iraqis look beastly and barbaric by comparison. If they are abused and humiliated, smeared with excrement, photographed naked in degrading poses, attacked by dogs, or otherwise maltreated, I can again in good conscience condemn their captors as barbarous animals; I'm not sure what the right wing in this country will do. Sneer at the ineffectual frat-boy hazing? Hypocritically threaten to nuke the country in retribution? Sadly, the only thing that would unite left and right in opposition to their treatment is if those soldiers were killed, and the right is in the position of requiring a lower standard of behavior.
Thanks to the inhumane policies of our government, we are now in a lose-lose situation. There is no reason to expect or demand any kind of moral treatment of our captured soldiers when we aren't willing to give such treatment to Iraqi prisoners.
- Log in to post comments
I heard on BBC World Service that they have been confirmed killed, with signs of torture.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5098186.stm
That's awful. More dead. The bodies are just piling up in this pointless war.
The only good news is that this action shows that our opponents are also politically incompetent thugs.
This morning the news said they were found. The two soldiers were tortured and beheaded.
Yes, stay the course because the war is going so well....
Yahoo news also says their bodies were found.
San Francisco Chronicle columnist Art Hoppe wrote a heartfelt piece in 1971 as the Vietnam war was ramping up into a new and even uglier phase. He lamented how wrenching it was to find that he could no longer support his country's actions. He could no longer root for his country and what the country's leaders were doing. I remember reading it when I was in college and the impact it had. Links and comments are here.
Henry V, act 4, scene 1
I would point out that for many (most?) cases at least, we *are* willing and bound by policy to treat Iraqi prisoners humanely. At this point, we have taken and released so many thousands of Iraqi prisoners in the course of three years that it's impossible to know how many detainments were handled with total propriety by military personnel doing the best they could.
That, of course, is not the larger point, which is that moral authority is hard won and easily squandered. Abu Ghraib and other scandals certainly harm (obliterate, after a while?) our moral standing. But the fact that these two guys were tortured may have less to do with their being American soldiers and more to do with the fact that brutal torture has become the norm in the intra-Iraqi conflict. The WaPo and NYT articles have been detailing for weeks how Iraqis are being "disappeared" and later found with eyes gouged out by power drills, holes in the skull, etc. It only adds to the heartbreak that now it's happening to U.S. soldiers.
If nothing else, this will probably shock the U.S. into realizing that segments of Iraq have been slipping into barbaric chaos for months now. This does not bode well.
I'm not sure what the right wing in this country will do. Sneer at the ineffectual frat-boy hazing?
No, they'll just point to it as justification for whatever their Glorious Leader decides we should do, and claim this proves that the Geneva Conventions wouldn't do any good, since "the terrorists" aren't going to follow them anyway. Sigh.
I'm not sure what the right wing in this country will do.
I don't think it's fair to refer to "the right wing" in this country as if it were some real entity upon which all the blame for the prisoner abuse should be levied. I think that of those Americans who think of themselves as conservatives (fiscally, socially), few support the treatment we saw at Abu-Ghraib. If I'm wrong about that, I'd like to be directed to the polls that tell against it. I can really imagine old WWII vets--Republican voters--being completely disgusted by what they saw about Abu-Ghraib, thinking that's not the America they remember.
The blame goes to all those in our military who either committed the acts or condoned them, either directly or by tolerance of them. And the blame also goes to our citizenry for not demanding firing and imprisonment of those who should have been held responsible. Your point is right about our setting the ethical bar to the ground, but the blame cannot be so easily shoved off on that imaginary entity called "the right wing".
cm, I'd like to shake your hand. This is a point that is insufficiently made largely because it's uncomfortable. You live in a democracy. Your government and the behaviour of its charges are your fault. The misbehaviour of your charges reflects directly on you whether or not you condone their actions -- the fact is your onw behaviour was insufficient both to prevent and react to it. As long as you invent factional opponents to blame, you have no chance of solving the underlying problems.
From the BBC story linked above:
This is breaking my heart.
How long until Coulter and Co. start going on talk shows trashing Ken MacKenzie?
I wish I had written this, but I didn't.
Compliments to Pissed_Off_Patricia at Blondesense
I wonder if he ever hears them. When the president of the United States is alone in his bedroom at the end of the day and he turns off the light, I wonder if he hears them. Does he ever hear somewhere in his head the cries of a soldier as he lays dying? Many say that a wounded and dying soldier will cry out for his mother. I imagine that's right. I imagine that's exactly what goes through a dying soldier's mind, his mother. As he feels his life slipping away, why wouldn't he want to cling to the woman who gave him that life. She was his source. I wonder if the president ever hears that cry and if he doesn't, how does he avoid it?
Perhaps he might hear the cries and screams of the tiny children who lay dying in a land far away from the presidential bedroom. Or maybe it's the sound of mothers and fathers caressing the bodies of their lifeless children. What must those sounds be like? Do they curse the man whose soldiers dropped the bomb or fired the shot? Do they wail at the top of their lungs or do they suffer the deep and retching sobs as only a mother or father can? Do you think those sounds ever make their way to the president's pillow? How can he avoid hearing this sad concert of sadness?
Maybe there are reasons the president doesn't hear the mournful cry of the dead and dying, the living and hurting. Maybe he's praying. Maybe he prays out loud. Maybe he prays as loud as he can to drown out the voices and the sobbing.. Maybe he prays himself to sleep each night and maybe he thinks if he prays loud enough and long enough the cries will fall silent. If he prays, what is he praying for? He's probably praying that the voices will stop and leave him alone. Will his prayers be answered? They won't.
Another morning will come, another day will begin. He will have managed to make it through another night. The sun will rise and he may escape the darkness and the voices for one more day. But with the new day will come more voices, more deaths, more pain, more suffering and those new voices will await him on his pillow tonight. Tonight there will be more voices and they will be louder. He will need to pray louder and longer than he did last night. Will he be able to avoid the voices forever? Cries from the darkness never go away. No matter how loud or long he prays, the voices will be patient and they will linger until one day he will be unable to pray any longer or any louder and then he will hear them. He'll hear them and he may go mad, because once he listens to the sounds of their pain, he will hear it forever. The next cry in the darkness may be his own.
How long until Coulter and Co. start going on talk shows trashing Ken MacKenzie?
I'm not going to trash him; he's speaking out of an anguish I can't feel.
I am, however, going to say that his idea of a plan being "give the insurgents $100 million" is lunacy, and would be just one more misstep in a war that has had many.
Yeah, because AQ was treating the people they kidnapped soooooo well before we went into Iraq.
Moron.
Surely you mean "moran".
cm sez...
And the blame also goes to our citizenry for not demanding firing and imprisonment of those who should have been held responsible. ...the blame cannot be so easily shoved off on that imaginary entity called "the right wing".
...and Halfjack enthusiastically agrees:
You live in a democracy. Your government and the behaviour of its charges are your fault. ... As long as you invent factional opponents to blame, you have no chance of solving the underlying problems.
At some level, I agree: I burn with shame at what my country is doing in my name, not only WRT prisoner torture but invading in the first place, and our unconscionable stance on global warming, and any number of other patterns of national behavior that I find personally abhorent. That said, a few things are worth noting:
1. Democracies are ruled by "the citizenry," but specifically by the majority. You can blame the minority for not winning, but it's harder to blame them for the specific policies of the side that did win. E.g., where Brits who voted Labour to blame for the policies of the Thatcher government? Maybe to some degree, but not (IMHO) to the same degree as those who actually voted for Maggie and her ilk.
2. In addition, even if it's reasonable to blame the losers when the game has been played fairly, you have to reevaluate when the winners have cheated. Even if you don't think the elections of 2000 and 2004 were tainted (and I don't want to restart that fight), it now seems clear that, once in power, the Bush administration systematically lied and otherwise deceived the citizenry in order to gain support for a policy we never would've accepted had they been honest. Democracy is only truly "government by the people" when the people in the government are at least reasonably honest with the rest of the people.
The "right wing" is not some imaginary straw-man faction; it's the other part of "the citizenry" that supports these arrogant, ignorant, inhuman policies. I bear my share of the blame for not defeating them; I disclaim responsibility for the despicable ways they have used their illegitimate, ill-gotten power.
Jason's version of Christianity's golden rule: Screw the other guy over as he has screwed unto you.
He must also know the answer to the burning question: Who would Jesus torture?
Today Dick Cheney says that the insurgents are in their last throes. Just as he knew that Saddam had WMD's.
Remember that in 2OO4, the Lancet published a report from the John Hopkins School of Public Health that the Bush invasion had caused, at least, the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis, the great majority due to coalition forces.
In an interview, one of the authors said that they had minimized the casualties because of fears of backlash. You can find all this with an easy quick search.
The only good news is that this action shows that our opponents are also politically incompetent thugs.
I'm glad you found something good about it. Mutilation = humiliation.
Moral high ground? We've been in the moral swamp for years already. http://tinyurl.com/ejrmv
The "right wing" is not some imaginary straw-man faction; it's the other part of "the citizenry" that supports these arrogant, ignorant, inhuman policies.
Here's an around-that-time poll that breaks things down by partisanship and also sex of respondent:
ABC poll on torture/abuse May 27 2004
Here's an interesting extract from it:
"In terms of partisanship, most Republicans, 55 percent, say physical abuse is acceptable in some cases; so do about half of independents, but 38 percent of Democrats. About four in 10 Republicans and independents say torture is acceptable in some cases, while fewer Democrats, 27 percent, agree."
Really these numbers aren't suggesting an obvious relationship between party affiliation and beliefs about abuse and torture. Here close to 1 in 3 Dems supported torture, let alone abuse. And close to half of Repubs didn't even support physical abuse of any kind. Yes, there is some skewing towards Repubs for support of abuse or torture, but some of that can be explained probably not so much in terms of supporting torture across the board but too much trust in their administration to do the proper thing and only use abuse/torture as a last resort.
Let's face it: most Americans are best captured by a model that describes them not as "right wing" or "left wing" but uninformed, clueless, and hapless. Among those who know clearly what was done at Abu-Ghraib, I would like to believe it is few indeed who support that. Certainly less than what would constiture any sort of "wing".
The two soldiers were tortured and beheaded.
I'd just like to point out that your government is now unable to state that the men were tortured unless it first demonstrates that they suffered pain consistent with major organ damage.
Well done, America.
Remember that in 2OO4, the Lancet published a report from the John Hopkins School of Public Health that the Bush invasion had caused, at least, the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis, the great majority due to coalition forces.
Remember, it wasn't just 100,000 (or more) deaths, but 100,000 extra deaths (not counting the Fallujah cluster, which may have been another 200,000 or so by itself), above what might have been expected if Saddam Hussein had stayed in power.
These questions are meaningless, because they don't define their terms. What qualifies as "physical abuse"? Where is the line between "physical abuse" and "torture"? What, for that matter, qualifies as "torture"? What are "some cases"?
I think that pretty much anyone can come up with "some cases" in which some dumb schmuck earns an ass-kicking.
Name one person kidnapped by AQ (and specifically AQ, not some other Islamic group) prior to the US invasion of Iraq. Just one. I really can't think of any. Kidnapping was never their style.
Name one person kidnapped by AQ prior to the US invasion of Iraq. Just one.
PZ Myer. I'm sure he was and replaced with this left-wing radical.
Kidnapping was never their style.
What can I say. They evolved. Are you saying that's a bad thing? On this site?!
Ah, but did the soldiers experience pain equivalent to major organ failure?
If not, then they weren't tortured, at least according to our infamous administration.
Did it occur to none of them that if they sanction torture, they lose the ability to condemn torture used against *us*?
People have been pointing out that the administration's been feeding us a line since the adminstration started feeding us a line. Most people believed what they wished to believe.
If you fell for them, then either you are stupid enough to swallow obvious lies, or you were willing to swallow stupid lies if they provided justification for what you wanted to do. Either way, what makes you think you're beyond condemnation?
Caledonian: Thugs the world over, from George Bush to Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda terrorists, never apply the same standard to themselves they apply to others. Does this (about torture) surprise?
And so the trainwreck continues ...
Really these [poll] numbers aren't suggesting an obvious relationship between party affiliation and beliefs about abuse and torture.
First, I disagree that the differences cited in the poll (55 versus 38 percent on one question; 40 versus 27 percent on the other), though I admit it distresses me that so many self-identified Democrats seem willing to countenance physical abuse or torture.
Second, as Dan points out, it's hard to get meaningful conclusions out of this survey since the questions seem to have been poorly defined (or if not poorly defined in fact, then poorly described).
Next, I find it interesting that, on the torture question, Republicans and independents are grouped together in opposition to Democrats. My guess -- and we can't really know, because the data doesn't seem to be broken out this way -- that the responses of independents dilute those of Republicans, and that the difference between Repubs and Dems would be greater if the independents were taken out.
Finally (on the poll), I think it's a mistake to assume "Republican" is a synonym for "right wing" and "Democrat" for "left wing." Both parties include moderates, and both party "sets" overlap the political centerline. One of my own senators, Joe Lieberman, is a Democrat (in name, at least) but could hardly be considered a leftist, esp. WRT the issues related to the war in Iraq. If somebody makes comments about "the right" and you respond with comments about Republicans, you're not precisely, comprehensively on point.
Let's face it: most Americans are best captured by a model that describes them not as "right wing" or "left wing" but uninformed, clueless, and hapless.
To be sure, many individual Americans are uninformed and clueless (as an aside, please tell me what democracy there is in the world about which you cannot say the same), many who are informed are honestly uncertain about how to resolve the competing interests and principles of these troubled times, and more yet are genuinely moderate. But the existence of a large population of Americans who are not "wingers" doesn't mean the wings don't exist, or that they're not meaningful.
There really is a right wing in this country, and a left wing as well, and there are deep, fundamental ideological differences between them. Aside from the struggle between faith and reason that's highlighted on this blog, there are also abiding differences about the nature of freedom, about civil and human rights, about the relationship between the individual and the community, and about the relationship between the nation and the community of nations. To ignore these serious philosophical disputes -- which are pursued with thoughtful rigor by at least some on both ends of the spectrum -- and instead just write the American people in toto off as ign'ant boobs is as foolish as it is insulting.
Among those who know clearly what was done at Abu-Ghraib, I would like to believe it is few indeed who support that.
I wish I had your faith, but I suspect there are more people who believe Abu-Ghraib was an understandable, if not entirely appropriate, part of the so-called "War on Terror" than either of us would be comfortable with. But to attribute that sort of moral blindness to all of us indiscriminately doesn't advance the conversation in any meaningful way.
Sorry for the double post, but I don't know how to edit a comment here. My comment...
"First, I disagree that the differences cited in the poll (55 versus 38 percent on one question; 40 versus 27 percent on the other), ..."
...from the previous post is missing some words. It should have been:
"First, I disagree that the differences cited in the poll (55 versus 38 percent on one question; 40 versus 27 percent on the other) are insignificant, ..."
Sorry for any confusion.
Ya know, there's a MAJOR differnce between the abuse that went on at Abu Ghraib, and being deliberately tortured to death. Even at it's worst, our side's 'misbehavior' pales in comparison to the jihadis' standard practice.
I call bullshit:
http://www.rct.dk/About_torture/Facts.aspx
You should read the entire site. It might do your sense of perspective a world of good... Or, at least, it will deprive you of any excuse for future ignorance.
- JS
Everyone who spent 8 years in Military Intelligence, including 2 tours in Iraq, raise your hand. Did you just raise yours, JS? If not, I'm fairly sure I know more about these things than you do.
I'm intrigued by your putting the word 'misbehavior' in quotes. That normally suggests that the word is being used ironically, or to refer to an inaccurate usage.
Do you consider the behavior of our forces in places like Abu Ghraib to be appropriate and/or compatible with the standards of military justice, Mike Crichton?
I said...
I suspect there are more people who believe Abu-Ghraib was an understandable, if not entirely appropriate, part of the so-called "War on Terror" than either of us would be comfortable with.
And Mike Crichton (presumably not the anti-science science fiction novelist) proves my point with his winking implicit approval of the actions at Abu-Ghraib.
Mike, your experience in Military Intelligence and your tours in Iraq may make you an expert in what we're doing over there, but it doesn't make you the expert in what we ought to be doing. We have civilian control of the military in this country, and your attitude is part of the reason I'm glad we do. I just wish we had different civilians in charge.
This reply to me appeared while I was posting something else, so I initially missed it:
If you fell for [the administration's lies], then either you are stupid enough to swallow obvious lies, or you were willing to swallow stupid lies if they provided justification for what you wanted to do. Either way, what makes you think you're beyond condemnation?
But I didn't fall for them. I told my friends Bush was a unilateralist, and that he was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq, within weeks of his inauguration, long before 9/11 created a plausible pretext for his lies and manipulation. There are huge numbers of us -- either almost half of the electorate or a tiny bit more than half of the electorate, depending on which election you're looking at -- who are neither stupidly oblivious to nor willingly complicit in these lies and the policies they support. We lost the political fight, and you can criticize us for that, but we lost the fight to a determined faction -- that "right wing" you keep saying doesn't exist -- that was actively promoting and campaigning for these policies. If you think the results were evil, what do you expect to gain by "condemning" those of us who are speaking out against them?
Caledonian said:
I'm intrigued by your putting the word 'misbehavior' in quotes. That normally suggests that the word is being used ironically, or to refer to an inaccurate usage.
Irony, as the grunts were probably just obeying (illegal) orders from the civilian leadership.
Do you consider the behavior of our forces in places like Abu Ghraib to be appropriate and/or compatible with the standards of military justice, Mike Crichton?
Absolutely not. In a better world, the officers and civilians who were _really_ responsible would be in prison right now. At the same time, our sides' abuses are pathetically minor compared to both Saddam's, and those of the thousands of petty strong-men who Shrubya's incompetence has allowed to proliferate unchecked.
Bill Dauphin said:
And Mike Crichton (presumably not the anti-science science fiction novelist)
Nope, not him.
proves my point with his winking implicit approval of the actions at Abu-Ghraib.
See the above response to Caledonian.
Mike, your experience in Military Intelligence and your tours in Iraq may make you an expert in what we're doing over there, but it doesn't make you the expert in what we ought to be doing. We have civilian control of the military in this country, and your attitude is part of the reason I'm glad we do. I just wish we had different civilians in charge.
I'm sure we would all agree that the burgler who rapes your children, kills your spouse, and forces you to listen to show tunes, is worse than the burgler who simply steals your money. From this, we can conclude that the second burgler really didn't do anything wrong at all. What's that you say? Only an idiot would come to that conclusion? But it's the exact same logic _you_ just used, to put words in my mouth.
I'm sure we would all agree that the burgler who rapes your children, kills your spouse, and forces you to listen to show tunes, is worse than the burgler who simply steals your money.
One burglar is no better or worse than the other, per se. The fact that the first is also a rapist and murderer adds to his load of evil (I actually like showtunes), but it in no way lessens the guilt of the one who is "only" a burglar.
From this, we can conclude that the second burgler really didn't do anything wrong at all. What's that you say? Only an idiot would come to that conclusion? But it's the exact same logic _you_ just used, to put words in my mouth.
No, I don't think you're an idiot, and I didn't put those words in your mouth. But the words you put in your own mouth were that the abuses at Abu-Ghraib were "pathetically minor." That is the attitude I was referring to when I talked about your "winking, implicit approval"... a sort of praising with faint damnation, if you will.
I don't care who you compare it to, torture is torture. I love this country, and I want to be able to be proud of it. Simply being the least evil among evil torturers isn't good enough for me. Apparently it is for you.