Say Your Peace
A couple of thoughts: 1) So, why did they hate us on 9/11?; and 2) the Left's continuing defense of Newsweek and incredibly .... continuing attack of the administration in the face of this monumental screw-up boggles the mind.
Think about what I am saying, PW. You realize that conservatives won't buy into this, but most fair-minded, centrist types just will in no way think to blame Pres. Bush for Newsweek's screw-up, either. The Left keeps covering for Newsweek, and you just lose credibility.
When making an inflammatory charge, you should have the goods on some one ... especially when making such a charge in a time of war. Newsweek was reckless in my view b/c it is continuing to pursue its agenda of highlighting every American misstep in the War on Terror.
DC, I'm not blaming the administration for the Newsweek screwup, I'm blaming them for Abu Griab. What happened there was undeniably WRONG. And this administraion was in charge, and cognizant. They simply looked the other way because they hoped for #1 results and #2 not to get caught.
1) Most if not all of the people in these detention centers had nothing to do with 9/11. Especially the Iraqi's.
2) Did you actually read the article? If you had you'd see that it's all about plausibility.
People won't buy into the possibility of interrogators desecrating the Koran? Is that what you're saying? I think people like you might not buy into it, but us reality focused individuals know that koran desecration is probably the least of the horrible things these poor detainees had to suffer through.
"It's appalling that the story got out there..." No, what's really appalling is the possibility that these things can be happening on our watch.
"public supporters of "exceptional" interrogation methods have argued that in the special, unusual case of the war on terrorism, we may have to suspend our fussy legality, ignore our high ideals and resort to some unpleasant tactics that our military had never used. *Opponents* of these methods, among them some of the *military's own interrogation experts*, have argued, on the contrary, that "special methods" are not only ineffective but counterproductive: They might actually inspire Muslim terrorists instead of helping to defeat them. They might also make it easier, say, for fanatics in Jalalabad to use two lines of a magazine article to incite riots."
We could also listen to our own military specialists. We know these things, yet the administration let this get away from them. BAD MANAGEMENT. This isn't the "rotten apple" this is a "bad barrel of apples".
"this monumental screw-up"
Or, rather, a small error in verification. They thought they had "official confirmation" of one part of the storyy when they did not, in fact. "Monumental screw-up"? Eh?
"most fair-minded, centrist types just will in no way think to blame Pres. Bush for Newsweek's screw-up"
Whever thought or said such a thing? Where do you get this?
"it is continuing to pursue its agenda of highlighting every American misstep in the War on Terror"
You might as well say "any" misstep, DC. Any event or report that does not adhere to your wishes must of course constitute an "agenda". Especially While At War.
Caps guy.
Friends, countrymen, lend me your ears ...
You know, one of the things that is irritating is ... how do I say this ... I am one of the few conservatives that will talk to you all. Now, maybe you don't want any one but say a Howard Dean parrot to talk to. If that's what you want, okay ... I will move on (actually, I think that some of you like the discussion), as I was digressing.
But, one thing that is really difficult is that I make a point and it gets totally missed, because ... I don't know ... for some reason maybe it is over your heads ... and then you call me dumb or the rough equivalent. Like, Scott, I realize that that the detainees are not there for 9/11. The point was ... radical Muslim hatred of the US predated 9/11. Abu Ghraib didn't create it. Nor did any other event ...
I think that the excessive reporting on Abu Ghraib, when you compare it to the lack of reporting to the atrocities committed by jihadis on both Muslims and non-Muslims is an outrage.
And I think such a lack of proportionality fans the flames of already existing anti-Americanism.
I certainly understand that the Koran flushing is plausible. But I am not going to wring my hands over it. And if it did happen, no civilized people would advocate murder in return. I mean, let's be honest ... what kind of people would go and kill innocent people over such a report?
Radical Muslims, that's who. And Newsweek, knowing that we are in a war and presumably not having their heads jammed so far up their butts as to understand this, should be very, very careful in reporting such a charge in a time of war. They should KNOW that it happened before reporting it.
So, keep defending them and you will lose the ear of every American who is not a member of the Far left.
Scott,
One final thing ... you said these "poor detainees". "Poor" detainees? Do you know who these people are? They are terrorists. You just blow me away.
Some of them, upon being released, have gone right back to the battlefield, to try and kill Americans. Poor detainees? Amazing.
Due process for the terrorist and all due respect for his religion, but send Tom Delay straigh to jail and Christians like me to the lions, huh? Think about it.
Question: How many of you would flush a Koran down the toilet to save an American's life?
Ever hear of "innocent until proven guilty?" Ever hear of "cruel and unusual punishment?" Ever hear of "due process?"
I guess not.
Let me answer your question with another question: How many American lives are saved by flushing Korans down the toilet? Now, how many "terrorists" were created by the same act?
The problem we on the left really have is that you on the right seem to believe that reporting on torture is worse than the torture itself. More, that torture is acceptable as long is it's performed in the name of "terrorism."
"...the detainees are not there for 9/11"
...
"They are terrorists."
So, which is it? Are they or aren't they? Got any proof? If they're terrorists, why are they being released?
Oh and give me a break. Do you really think that there have been more news stories about Abu Ghraib than there have about terrorism or islamic extremism? Come on. Every single day we hear the stories about how this or that terrorist is plotting our demise. Or how suicide bombers killed so many ppl outside a recruiting office.
More stories about Abu Ghraib? I don't think so.
Scott,
I'll address your comments, as best I can. Because you talk about things that I've never heard of, like "due process". Is this where the water on the grass evaporates in the a.m.? I don't know.
The concepts you mentioned in your comment, i.e. "cruel and unusual punishment" are guarantees to Americans under our Constitution. Such guarantees have never been extended to enemy combatants, much less those who do not abide by the laws of war and are arguably not even protected by the Law of War.
I realize that you and the far Left would like to grant the same legal protections to the terrorists at Gitmo as you would to American citizens. But we're not quite there yet.
However, the S.C. has made recent rulings (last year) re: the charging and holding of these detainees. Hence, the release of some and their return to the battlefield to try and kill Americans. Thank you, Left. Did you not know about the two S.C. cases last year pertaining to the indefinite detention of enemy combatants at Gitmo? I mean ... I can barely read and I knew about it.
And ... nothing that happened at Abu Ghraib amounted to torture. This is one of the many flaws in your analysis. Wrong? Yes, although frankly not all of it was (i.e., panties on the head and "uncomfortable positions"? Give me a freaking break. Torture? No.
But the media breathlessly runs endless coverage of Abu Ghraib. And the Left wrings their hands about how bad America and its military are. Gee, I wonder if the comments of Terry Moran have any relevance here?
Re: torture, I will ask this question: What sane persion thinks that putting a Koran in a toilet is torture?
Evidently not even the Muslim crazies at Gitmo that were doing this. Finally, to my question ...
You didn't answer my question. Instead you asked one. I will answer your question, though, and then ask mine again.
How many Muslim terrorists were created by flushing a Koran? I don't know. First of all, we don't know if Americans did this. We know that some of the Gitmo detainees did. But, as for the effects of such conduct if it were to occur ... it would depend on how much play the MSM gives it, frankly.
I will grant you this ... if the press were to breathlessly report on such allegations, it would probably create more Muslim terrorist than "Piss Christ" created Christian ones.
And why is that, by the way? But ... I will stay on point.
Now, to my question: Would you flush a Koran down the toilet to save an American life? Why or why not?
I think one basic thing blocking progress in this thread is this: Do we assume that a detainee is a terrorist, or not?
I really think the disagreement lies there. Now, if I ruled the world, I would not allow some interrogation techniques (such as religious mockery), even among those I had alreadyy assumed guilty. DC, from your comments, I gather you would. Fine. Point taken.
But I think the crux of the argument really boils down to; are they terrorists or are they suspects?
Surely we can agree that different standards of conduct apply in each case, yes? This is where "rule of law" applies. Even, perhaps (gasp) International Law.
And DC, people died at Abu Ghraib. And it wasn't because they had panties on their heads.
Sometimes I wonder if the argument isn't really; are they human beings, or is it us vs. sub-humans?
You know where I stand, brother Christian. How 'bout you?
From what I understand of the folks at Gitmo, most of these were gotten right off the battlefield in Afghanistan. Indeed there may be different standards depending upon who you are interrogating. I understand that.
And certainly we should (and do, I believe) regard them as human beings, the misbehavior of a small minority notwithstanding.
But ... is this question so hard to answer ... Would you flush a Koran to save an American's life? We can assume from the question that doing such a thing would yield the result of saving a life ... so, we would either be dealing with a terrorist or some one who would have info. about a terrorist.
So ... what's the answer? And why?
If any of you care to, we are discussing this at my site. You are welcome to provide your thoughts.
Okay, first off I'll answer your question: If it could be proven that resorting to religious intimidation would save a life (notice I don't specify American life) then I would probably consider it. I find it hard to believe that such a thing could be proven or that our guys who were doing this sort of thing had any such proof. But there you go.
Now that that's out of the way, I'd like to point out that this is not about whether or not our guys did such a thing (since there's not much doubt,) nor if such a thing is right or wrong. Obviously, in this case, right and wrong are not so clearly defined. There are many shades of grey in between the two extremes, and I find it simplistic to try to define actions in a binary sense.
What this is about is whether or not a news source should report on the crimes of American forces. I would say that in the USA, no news source should ever be punished for reporting on any subject. To do so would be in violation of the first amendment and would be a great disservice to the American public.
I do, however feel that the news source should be as sure about a story as they can be before reporting it. You feel that the news is not accurate, and I agree with you. The news has been a travesty for a long time, and it started when we started making superstars out of newscasters, instead of keeping them humble. When the news started being about ratings instead of about accurate, hard-hitting reporting, then we lost the unofficial 4th check and balance to our government.
For example: when the Bush administration started all the rhetoric about Iraq, every news source you could find (barring blogs and other independant media) was steadfastly repeating the government lines without any fact checking or even the most rudimentary investigation. People love strife. Strife = ratings. Ratings = more money for our superstar news reporters, so that's what got reported. The facts were out there. Look through the archives of some of the bigger leftie blogs, and you will see that anyone without money on the brain was not fooled.
A Florida court has already ruled that the news has no obligation to tell us the truth, so why should they?
In conclusion, I think that something the right and left can both agree on is that the news industry needs reform. We need to go back to the old system of fact checking investigation and being concerned with accurate reporting rather than if such and such story is going to net more ratings.
Scott,
I have to give you credit. Obviously, we have some very fundamental substantive disagreements, but I agree with a lot of both of your prior comments. So, am I still an idiot? Ha. Ha. But seriously ...
And ... you'll see if you read what I post on the subject ... that I don't differentiate b/t re: where the person to be saved is from.
Dang it must be getting cool down in hell.
*looks for flying pigs*
Commenting by HaloScan
