Here is Mark Noonan of Blogs for Bush celebrating a new poll showing that a majority of people favor the use of torture in some circumstances:
. . . I think it does illustrate why the phony stories about Americans torturing terrorists don't grab hold of imaginations outside the fever swamps of the left: I think, on balance, that we'd all rather risk having the wrong guy roughed up from time to time [ed: by "roughed up," he means "tortured"] rather than have the right guy sit there smilingly silent while the bomb goes off on the school bus.
And here is Bluto at MyPetJawa sharing his explanation for the results of that poll -- what he refers to as the "Red Hot Poker Up the Ass Poll":
Thinking people are fed up with terrorist apologists bleating about "dignity" for captured jihadi babyhunters. Originally posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto, where we always keep a nice warm poker or two in the fire.
And now here is John Burns' account in the New York Times of the testimony provided yesterday in the Saddam Hussein criminal trial by one witness who was tortured by Saddam's secret police:
During today's session, an unidentified male witness, testifying behind a beige curtain to conceal his identity, said he was arrested after the assassination attempt and taken to Baath Party headquarters, where he found people "screaming because of the beatings," according to The Associated Press.
The witness said Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti was present."When my turn came, the investigator asked me my name and he turned to Barzan and asked him: `What we shall do with him?' Barzan replied: `Take him. He might be useful.' We were almost dead because of the beatings."
The A.P. said that under questioning by the judge, the witness said he was blindfolded at the time and believed it was Mr. Ibrahim speaking because other prisoners told him so.
The witness said he was taken to Baghdad "in a closed, crowded van that had no windows.""When we arrived at the building they asked us to stand along the wall," he said. "We were told to stand only on one foot, and we kept on this position for two hours before we were taken to cells with red walls. I was thirsty but the water was very hot."
And here is Burns' summary of the testimony of a female witness who was also tortured:
One witness, a woman identified as Witness A, recounted how security officers forced her to strip and tortured her with beatings and electric shocks at a secret police center. She was 16.
"They lifted my legs up and beat me with cables," said the woman, whose voice was electronically disguised. Several times, she broke into sobs. "Is this what happens to the virtuous Iraqi woman that Saddam speaks about?" she asked, her voice cracking.
Later, she told how she was taken to Abu Ghraib prison, where torture and humiliation became routine. She recalled that guards used to pull on the penis of a deaf male relative with women and children watching. She said she had seen camels at the prison and envied their freedom.
"God is great, oh, God!" she moaned, briefly unable to continue.
So these are the witnesses who are being called at Saddam Hussein's trial in order to demonstrate that Saddam is a despicable, criminal tyrant worthy of death. On what grounds can we possibly condemn any of this?
It is just indisputably true that much of what these witnesses are testifying to are things that the U.S. has been doing -- and in the case of Abu Ghraib, in the very same place where Saddam did it. And we're not just doing those things, but expressly insisting on the right to do it. Doesn't that present a rather significant problem given that our stated goal in Iraq is to bring human rights and democracy to that country and to demonstrate to the wider Muslim world the true nature of American values?
For decades we self-righteously preached democracy and human rights while propping up Middle Eastern dictators who viciously suppressed and persecuted their citizens. Did we think that the people in those countries wouldn't notice that? They did. And they're certainly noticing that the parade of horrors which Saddam perpetrated on Iraqis is not all that different from the things which we and some of our Shiite allies have been doing and are promising more of.
It's one thing to take the attitude that war is hell and we have to break some eggs to make an omelette and all of those other manly cliches which are trotted out t0 justify any sort of behavior during war. That's all well and good.
But this is supposed to be a different kind of war, according to the people who wanted to wage it. The idea here isn't to conquer cities or compel capitulation but to change the nature of the Middle East and to improve how we are regarded in that region. Once that becomes the objective of the war, one can no longer take the oh-so-tough approach of being dismissive of what other people think about our methods -- since what other people think about us is what the war -- at least this war -- is supposed to be about.
And while one can perhaps employ any and all means to win in a garden-variety war, one cannot employ things like torture, sexual humiliation, due processless detentions and disappearances -- what Mark at Blogs for Bush calls just a little "roughing up" and Rush Limbaugh calls "letting off steam" -- in a war that is supposed to be about bringing democracy and human rights to a place that hasn't previously had either. This is the case not because doing those things is wrong in some moral sense; it is because they undermine and preclude the fulfillment of what we claim are our goals.
It is surely the case that the U.S. has not yet fully sunk to the level to which Saddam descended, but the fact that this has become our defense -- our standard -- is by itself significant. Listening to the testimony at Saddam's trial, it seems clear that the differences between Saddam and what we are doing is one of degree and not of level. But give us time. Saddam had 35 years to perfect his torture and terrorizing techniques. We're just getting started.
After all: "Thinking people are fed up with terrorist apologists bleating about "dignity" for captured jihadi babyhunters. "
You've been on fire the last couple of days with this point and you make it as well as anyone, at least.
ReplyDeleteWe are becoming what we claim we have been fighting against. And you are absolutely right that it prevents us from achieving anything positive with this war.
I understand what you are saying about some of the more impurdent, extreme statements on the part of war bloggers. They are often in jest, but still counter-productive.
ReplyDeleteBut I think everyone understands that if we are to succed in defeating the Jihadists and rejectionists in Iraq, we need to use strong force. That is not a reflection of how the law-abiding Iraqi people generally will be treated, and I think everyone understands that.
Let's follow your logic, Glenn, with a little exercise in reductio ad absurdum.
ReplyDeleteYou believe that when we use an enemy's tactics against him, we become that enemy.
Thus, every Allied soldier who shot a Nazi, became a Nazi.
Every cop who shot a murderer, became a murderer.
Every person who killed a rabid animal to protect his family, became a rabid animal.
The logic is inescapable. Seems that the only way to earn your approval is to be a pacifist. Pacifists die without a non-pacifistic society to protect them.
Think I'll pass.
You believe that when we use an enemy's tactics against him, we become that enemy.
ReplyDeleteI believe no such thing. There are many tactics used by the enemy that are perfectly legitimate, such that when we use them, we do nothing to compromise our standings or values. There are plenty of ethical and legal ways to wage war. I would say that one of the things that has enabled the U.S. to command such respect and maintain such credibility in the last century was the fact that we took great pains to adhere (not always perfectly) to its principles EVEN WHEN fighting wars.
Just as there are legitimate war tactics, there are war tactics which are reprehensible and which, when used by our enemy, cause us to describe our enemy as representing some sort of unique evil that must be crushed. That must be true, or else the U.S. could never maintain that it is any different (or better) than, say, Saddam Hussein or Adolph Hitler. It is precisely because we have principles which preclude us from engaging in certain acts that they freely engage in that we are different. If we have no such standards, we become them definition.
The U.S. vanquished numerous enemies in the past without having to descend to the enemies' level of inhumanity, barbarism and tyranny. That is what accounts for America's greatness.
What makes Saddam Hussein evil isn’t that he wages war, such that we have to be pacifistic in order to be different. What makes him despicable is that he tortures, punishes his citizens without due process, engages in unprovoked wars, bars all dissent, etc.
This view being peddled by people like you - "Whatever the enemy does, we can do, because that's war" - is the new and radical approach, for the U.S. at least, and it is particularly ill-suited to a war where the objective, supposedly, is showing the Muslim world how DIFFERENT we are from their dictators, not how similar.
"This view being peddled by people like you - "Whatever the enemy does, we can do, because that's war"
ReplyDeleteOf course, don't let the fact that I haven't espoused that view stop your from drawing numerous high-sounding conclusions.
Your ilk, on the other hand, have been busy redefining down tactics used. Thus, Saddam can, with a straight face, declare that going three days without a change of underwear is "torture", and be confident that some snivelling shyster from the ACLU will take up his cause.
This is the kind of thinking that also affects the ROE (rules of engagement) for US soldiers, as generals struggle to wage forms of war acceptable to vocal liberals. Result: soldiers are forced to take more risks, more of them die as a result, liberals shriek about a quagmire.
Let me give you a broad hint: depriving a captured terrorist of sleep or playing Christina Aguilerra songs is not "torture".
War is war, and the sooner over, the better for all involved. Idealistic rants do nothing but get more people killed And this statement:
"I would say that one of the things that has enabled the U.S. to command such respect and maintain such credibility in the last century was the fact that we took great pains to adhere (not always perfectly) to its principles EVEN WHEN fighting wars."
Proves to my satisfaction that your worldview is naive, and your knowledge of history limited.