I might have begun to suspect that they were ashamed.
Sheesh Ahab, one can only display shame if one has a conscience.
Yoo. S. A.
Eew. S. A.
[too ashamed to sign this]
For all the conservative blathering about "moral relativism," I love how their first response to evidence of U.S. torture is "those guys over there are worse!"
brad delong over at the "semi daily journal" has an interesting thread on this discussing possibilities of penalties for Yoo that are more local. These range from trying to strip him of his professorship to shunning. I like the ones that focus on the social aspects of Yoo's life. I can imagine a well run campaign of ostracism that includes posting Yoo's picture with information on his role as chief enabler of torture, and the recruitment of hundreds of anonymous citizens to simply spit or turn their backs on him in every single instance where he sets foot out of his house or car. Imagine how fast he'd resign and go away if he couldn't enter a bookstore without the clerks pointing and calling him "torturer" and if he couldn't enter a restaurant without the other patrons standing up and calling him out?
aimai
exactly what "war crimes" were perpetrated at Abu Ghraib again? Was there a line in the Geneva Convention that spoke directly to underwear as headgear? Give me a break. Those guys over there are conducting summary executions, so yes, I will point to the fact that "those guys over there are worse."
MCconfrontation,
wrong. as usual. the offenses at abu ghraib included murder as well as physical abuse/torture *and rape.* these are defined as war crimes but even if they weren't they were prohibited by treaties the US entered into. The whole *point* of Yoo's work is to deny to congress its historic role in determining how prisoners will be treated and award to the executive priviliges and rights that it has, historically, lacked. If you don't understand the basic humanitarian issues, and you don't understand the basic constitutional issues, your posts resolve themselves into a jonah goldbergesque series of farts and grunts. But then, you probably don't grasp that either. To make things perfectly clear *there could be a conservative/republican viewpoint on torture that marches with Yoo's legal perspective but very few respectable conservative legal scholars actually old it. This is not a case of dems vs republicans, or of liberals vs conservatives. The *conservative scholars who have weighed in on this* are as horrified as the rest of us. Yoo's opinions, like yours, have neither legal foundation nor moral coherence.
aimai
Well said, Aimai.
MCConfrontation,
Whether you want to acknowledge this or not, some actions - regardless of contingency - are wrong. Categorically unacceptable. And the moral consensus for several hundred years has been that torture is one of those acts. Now, there are certainly circumstances where the use of torture might be justified, but that's a far cry from claiming it still something you ought to do.
As individuals ostensibly committed to (big "L") Liberal values - respect for the humanity of every person, respect of and deference to the rule of law, etc. - we should regard torture as something not just morally wrong, but unbecoming of anyone who believes in the values by which this country was founded.
I guess I would admit that my definition of torture is not the same as your collective definition of torture.
nobody was convicted of murder at abu ghraib; check your facts lady.
Jamelle, I agree with all of your points. I am not saying "we ought to torture" these fools. But I guess the differences in our opinions is exactly what constitutes torture.
nobody was convicted of murder at abu ghraib; check your facts lady.
Well, so nobody was convicted. I guess that makes it okay.
I just don't get what MC' thinks his point is. Actually, people were convicted (that's the "bad apples" thing) and their behavior certainly included things that were definitionally violations of the Geneva Conventions which actually go so far as to prohibit the photographing of soldiers out of uniform and their deliberate humiliation. Like it or not we agreed to those rules because we wanted those rules to apply to *our own soldiers* in the wars we anticipated being fought after we *signed those treaties* and agreed to abide by those rules.
So what is your point, MC? Here are the facts of the case: Bush/Cheney and MC want to torture prisoners who may or may not be suspected terrorists. They know that is against the law. They hire a hack lawyer, Yoo, to write them an opinion they think they can use to bamboozle the various US authorities, the US military, and the intelligence community. The memos say its ok to torture, in fact its ok to do anything because all rights in a time of war are vested in a supreme executive. And then on the strength of that people are tortured, and some even die. That's simply not in dispute. Even the CIA and the military agree on it. In fact, they agree on it precisely because the entire function of the memos in the first place was to remove culpability from practitioners of torture after they have committed formerly illegal acts at the behest of the supreme commander. OK? That was the whole point of the memos. Because they were planning to do what they did. And they did it.
I don't get what the point of denying it is? Sure, there was a point for lickspittles to deny abu ghraib before the photos came out. And there was a point to slavishly parrotting rush's lines that this was mere frat boy hanky panky before the death of the taxi driver in afghanistan came out or the testimony about the boy being raped and all that stuff. But after the images of dead and beaten bodies, and after our own intelligence community and military have gone on record with their own disgust at their "leaders" and after conservative legal scholars and JAG's have weighed in saying both that torture/law breaking was done under Yoo's authority what is the point of continuing to deny it? I mean really?
And even more absurdly, you deny it because you either don't think its torture, or think (like cliff may) that torture is good enough for those people and not too low for us as US citizens. That's the definition of a sociopath, as well as the sign of a blooming idiot.
Look--approve of torture because you think its necessary or because you think its a good thing. Or approve of it because you like the idea of getting someone else to take the burden of your sadism while you just enjoy the pix. But please dont waste our time denying what *our own government doesn't deny.* Yoo's memos set out to legitimize torture and to render it legal *so that we can torture people.* And we did. Yoo is, presumably, proud of it and he did the work for pay at the behest of Cheney so we can be sure he likes what he ordered up. Why does MC confrontation hate great american heroes like Yoo and Cheney? If torture was what they thought we needed to do why does MC refuse to accept that?
aimai
nobody was convicted of murder at abu ghraib
Nobody was convicted of murder for the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, either. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Hey hogan. I think the point is even more important. Under the special laws and signing statements etc...that bush et al have put into practice with regard to Iraq no one is going to be convicted of *anything* because no one can be prosecuted. Look at the women who were raped by their co workers at KBR. No one denies that it happened--under the contracts that the women supposedly signed even criminal acts committed against them are forced into *arbitration.* In effect, the rest of us US citizens gave up our rights for the state to hold criminals accountable for their acts on KBR corporate property. Most of the murders of innocent civilians in Iraq took place in a legal no man's land--committed either by mercenary contractors we insist are above both iraqi and american law or by soldiers who are nominally under military law but in reality won't be prosecuted for mistakes (or, if prosecuted, won't be imprisoned).
No doubt mc will say "but not at abu ghraib" because the second law of troll thermodynamics is to simply fixate on small side issues rather than deal with the big picture.
aimai
aimai: True enough. Let's just say that what happened at Abu Ghraib happened and was processed under military law, under which no commanding officer is ever at fault, wrongdoers are always rogues and bad apples, and the worst stuff never even gets investigated, let alone prosecuted. That's not new; Robert Sherrill wrote a book in the '60s called "Military Justice is to Justice as Military Music is to Music." What's new is that we're extending that regime to the civilian world.
And it may not be a bad thing to tell people that under the legal theories of the Bush administration, the entire world would look like Chicago in the last years of Prohibition. Or like Basra last week, for that matter; the cops are just another faction of the criminals, only with distinctive uniforms and more expensive intruments of torture.
Actually, come to think of it, the feedback loop is running in both directions. Charles Graner, the ringleader at Abu Ghraib, was a Pennsylvania prison guard when his National Guard unit was called up, and what went on there was apparently not that different from the standard practice at SCI Greene. He was the one they looked to for guidance on how to run a prison. We militarize the police to deal with Teh Menace of Teh Drugs; prisons become overcrowded and unmanageable (and largely unsupervised), so guards become more brutal; guards get called up for military service and pass on to soldiers what they've learned from their war. Prisons are another legal no man's land.
Tom: I don't think murder is ever okay, okay? I know you're being sarcastic, but please don't imply that I think it's okay.
aimai: I actually agree with many of your points in your response. I think my point, ultimately, is that some modes of interrogation, albeit harsh, should not be tagged as torture. If the interrogation leaves a bruise on a guys shoulder, I'm not going to call it torture. If we have to keep Joe Mohammed up for 72 straight hours to get him to talk, I'm not going to call it torture because the guy can sleep it off, and maybe we get useful information that thwarts another attack on US resources, troops, or civilians. If a guy is scared by the interrogation, mission accomplished. That's part of a harsh interrogation.
If a form of interrogation is going to leave the subject with a permanent disablity, I would call it torture. You can keep a guy in a cold cell until he decides to talk, but when you hit the point that he suffers frostbite on his left big toe, now we're talking torture. "Uncomfortable" does not equal "torture." Not for me anyway.
As far as taking photographs of the enemy out of uniform.... these assholes dont wear uniforms! THEY'RE breaking the rules of the geneva convention. Okay, so I understand that this group has no country, and has not signed any geneva convention, so when fighting an enemy of that order, which plays by no established set of rules, why should we be bound by something that ultimately creates a disadvantage for us? Your views on this subject cause me to believe that the lot of you want us to lose this war. And even if you only want to lose it so we get out of there, it's still treasonous.
MC confrontation we *tortured jose padilla* an american citizen, without charging him with any crime, until he lost his mind. Why don't you read some books by torture victims before you prounounce on how much torture you think is torture? No one cares what you think, you neither have the courage to actually take up arms against our enemies in this war you want the rest of us to fight and die in, nor even the wit to read the stuff you comment on. No one is talking about a "bruise on joe mohammed's shoulder" we are talking about *abrogating the law of the land* so that low level operatives can abuse and torture *people we ourselves have acknowledged were not guilty of terroristic crimes against americans * at fucking all. OK? The people at abu ghraib who were tortured and killed were as likely to have been arrested for thievery as anything else. By the US army's own account, in the end, almost 40 percent of the guys we are holding at guantanamo were *not guilty of fighting against the US in afghanistan at fucking all.* they were picked up by mistake and then we couldn't figure out how to realease them. These are the people we have tortured and abused since the start of this war. The fact that you remain in absolute ignorance of the facts this long into the war and this long into their exposure in the mass media makes me despair for my country. When did the honest conservatives die and leave us with nothing but these brain dead, fear mongering, piss pots?
aimai
the fact that you rely on "the mass media" speaks for itself.
piss pots? now that's one i haven't heard in awhile.
fuck off and die. Really. Its all you ar worth.
aimai
i've read john mccains books. i suppose that counts.
jose padilla? the fact that you bring up and actually defend this filthy criminal proves your worth as an american, which is none. he was CONVICTED OF AIDING TERRORISTS. asshole!
always america last with you...
If we have to keep Joe Mohammed up for 72 straight hours to get him to talk, I'm not going to call it torture
Interesting, because that was the exact technique used in the Soviet Gulags to get people to make false confessions. Ask Solzhenitsyn and Robert Conquest.
So basically, you're a Communist who hates American values. Now fuck off and die.
Commenting by HaloScan
