Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Excellent read. Couldn't agree more. Thanks for sharing it!

Posted by Dave G at June 1, 2007 06:49 AM

That manual and the photos of the 40+ hostages rescued showed real torture. My uncle, a POW held by North Korea for 30 months during the Korean War, experienced real torture. The BS that happened at Abu Graib was stupid but it wasn't torture.

Posted by Larry J at June 1, 2007 06:53 AM

I disagree, Rand. If anything, it's a rant on the self-immolation of the Press with a wet kiss to Fox News.

Quite frankly, I don't find the fact that AQ has a torture manual to be news. They had manuals for 9-11. Got that information, thanks.

I understand some people need reminders of this, but these are the same people who will trash this story because it even has the words, "Fox News".

Posted by Leland at June 1, 2007 06:59 AM

Dog bites man? Not newsworthy. Why? Dogs bite people. Everyone knows that.

Man bites dog? Now that is newsworthy.

Al Qaeda is scum. AQ tortures? Yup, they are scum. Now tell me something newsworthy.

America tortures? Hey, wait a minute! We are supposed to be the good guys! Newsworthy.

Per Glenn Greenwald:

The reason that it is news that the U.S. tortures, but not news that Al Qaeda does, is because Al Qaeda is a barbaric and savage terrorist group which operates with no limits, whereas the U.S. is supposed to be something different than that. Isn't it amazing that one even needs to point that out?
But neoconservatives and other Bush followers do not recognize that distinction and do not believe in it. They see an equivalency between the U.S. and Al Qaeda -- since they do it, we are justified in doing it. And thus, based on that equivalency, they demand that the media treat stories of torture from the U.S. and Al Qaeda exactly the same, as though they are equally newsworthy.

I am sorry, but I believe we ARE morally superior to al Qaeda. But only if we act like it as well.

Posted by Bill White at June 1, 2007 08:49 AM

Glenn Greenwald explains what should be obvious. (I see that someone else already quoted the most relevant passage).

Surber's whining about fake torture is ridiculous; some allegations may be fake, but fake torture doesn't lead to real murders.

Surber's rant is a disjointed grab bag digging back as far as the Florida election (in which he rails against "Gore's lies" while misrepresenting the recount results himself) to try and find bias. Perhaps the most hypocritical passage castigates the media for failing to report the number of enemy deaths... which Surber then also fails to report. Does this mean Surber has joined the "spoiled brat" news media in "taking sides" against the United States? No, there's no liberal media conspiracy, just the fact that US deaths are each named and tallied, while enemy deaths (and the associated collateral deaths) are harder to keep track of.

Posted by Roy S at June 1, 2007 08:53 AM

I think a couple of you missed the point of the article. The point is not that Al Qaeda has torture manuals. The point is that the majority of the 'main stream media' continues to ignore any information that does not conform to their political agenda (anti-Bush).

The article correctly points out that Fox brings up both sides, both pro and anti Bush while papers like the WashPost, NYTimes, etc does not.

Posted by Tom W. at June 1, 2007 08:56 AM

Why even make the comparison, unless there is some equivalence between the United States and Al-Qaeda? Making the comparison is in itself demeaning to us.

The other point, separate from the moral issue raised by Bill, is that torture does not provide useful information. That according to experts.

So when you torture you are doing it not for the information content you wish to derive, but rather the sheer pleasure it gives the torturer. We don't need that pleasure given that we claim we are better than Al-Qaeda. However, human nature is human nature. And in recognition of the latter we have the Third Geneva Convention.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at June 1, 2007 09:03 AM

The other point, separate from the moral issue raised by Bill, is that torture does not provide useful information. That according to experts.

Exactly right.

Posted by Bill White at June 1, 2007 10:00 AM

"The other point, separate from the moral issue raised by Bill, is that torture does not provide useful information. That according to experts.

Exactly right."

Except, of course, that whatever we _are_ doing is, in fact, producing results. Not just the crap where anyone will end up saying _anything_ their captor wants just to get the pain to stop.

Some of us (waves hand) consider what we're purposefully doing 'intense interrogation.' (As opposed to what we're not - or had least _shouldn't_ be - doing, like the crap at Abu Ghraib)

The Third Convention doesn't cover AQ btw. The pre-Bush take on this was that they would be considered 'Spies' or 'Saboteurs' - neither of which is accorded POW protections. In the various major "real" wars, they've often been simply shot without anyone considering this a war crime.

Posted by Al at June 1, 2007 10:44 AM

Larry:

The BS that happened at Abu Graib was stupid but it wasn't torture.

I'm sorry, perhaps I missed a lap - when was it decided that rape, pouring Acid (Phosphoric) on people, hitting injured people on their wounds, and beating them to death not count as torture?

If you're taking about the pictures that were displayed with the naked human pyramids, well, if that was all there was, you'd have a point.

Of course, it's not - and you don't.

As others have pointed out in these comments, we're supposed to be "The Good Guys", or as someone else put it in another thread, "bringing peace and Democracy to Iraq"; not doing the same crap that Saddam was doing.

Posted by W. Ian Blanton at June 1, 2007 11:06 AM

"Some of us (waves hand) consider what we're purposefully doing 'intense interrogation.'"

Such as? Examples please?

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at June 1, 2007 11:23 AM

Mr W. Ian, our foe teaches torture, encourages torture, films torture and brags about torture.

On the other hand such actions (rape, acid, beating to death) are not US Policy and are not condoned, IE people went to jail for committing such acts.

THAT is what makes us the "Good Guys".

Any sane person can see that.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 1, 2007 01:21 PM

"When an Abu Ghraib happens, we investigate it, and we try people, and we punish them"--

With all due respect, at Abu Ghraib the highest ranking
person punished was an E-6.

Mostly a bunch of privates and specialists were busted,
No Company grade field gade or general staff were
punished.

Posted by anonymous at June 1, 2007 02:27 PM

"Mostly a bunch of privates and specialists were busted,
No Company grade field gade or general staff were
punished."

Proabally because it is highly unlikely someone as higly ranking as a field grade office is incredibly unlikely to do something so stupid.

Even as an NCO, I went thru GC briefings numerous times and that was in peacetime. I am sure any one who has gone to the war College has really seen their share.

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 1, 2007 03:15 PM

AHHHH!!! I just poured phosphoric acid on myself!

That's right, I spilled a can of coca cola.

Posted by Ed Minchau at June 1, 2007 03:21 PM

From the current issue of Time magazine:

Many of the controversial interrogation tactics used against terror suspects in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo were modeled on techniques the U.S. feared that the Communists themselves might use against captured American troops during the Cold War, according to a little-noticed, highly classified Pentagon report released several days ago. Originally developed as training for elite special forces at Fort Bragg under the "Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape" program, otherwise known as SERE, tactics such as sleep deprivation, isolation, sexual humiliation, nudity, exposure to extremes of cold and stress positions were part of a carefully monitored survival training program for personnel at risk of capture by Soviet or Chinese forces, all carried out under the supervision of military psychologists.

Posted by at June 1, 2007 03:40 PM

No, these were not done in SERE school because we were afraid this is what the commies would do, these were the 'appetizers' so to speak of what the commies would do. The fact they were mild enough to use on our own people should be a clue for the clueless.

Heaven forbid Time should actually comprehend what they are writing about. What one would experince would be a severe form of hazing but nothing that should have any lasting physical or psychological impacts.

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 1, 2007 04:18 PM

We don't have to guess as to what the commies might do, we know that the DID DO: Vietnam. And what they did made water boarding look like a day at the beach.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 1, 2007 04:43 PM

"..Vietnam. And what they did made water boarding look like a day at the beach."

which is why McCain, the only Presidential candidate who has actually been tortured tells us that there can be no shades of grey in the matter. No hiding behind exemptions from POW status, no "advanced interrogation tactics", a full compliance with the spirit of the Geneva Conventions. Why so few conservatives can agree with him boggles the sensible mind And this has played its part in smearing us internationally.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at June 1, 2007 05:42 PM

It is indeed awful that some Muslims cheer Al Qaeda's use of torture. I expect that good Muslims feel even just as distraught about that as good Americans feel watching the pro torture (no, excuse me, pro-enhanced interrogation) cheering at the Republican primary debate. Not only will the pro torture candidates never be tried or punished for it, the audience reaction suggests that one of them will be rewarded with the presidency for it. Punishment will be limited to "a few bad apples" who carry out torture orders, not to anyone who merely enables or issues such orders.

Of course, none of this "casts doubt on the goodness of our own society and values" - our society's values include due process, a prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, and the Geneva Conventions. The only doubt cast is on the movement which has temporarily hijacked our society, whose leaders would throw away those values because they incorrectly think it an expedient way to cope with an enemy that has successfully terrified them.

Posted by Roy S at June 1, 2007 06:03 PM

".. because they incorrectly think it an expedient way to cope with an enemy that has successfully terrified them."

I disagree. I think the liberals are no less terrified, they simply react differently. I think it has much to do with the conservative "base", a base well nourished by media such as talk radio. That base, and that incessant drum beat from the base media has hijacked clear thinking from the conservative mind. Presumably some of the candidates at that debate do agree with McCain inwardly, but pandering to the base is more important to securing the nomination. It is conceivable that one or more of them will act differently when presented with the presidency, but at that debate they missed an opportunity to educate, lead and guide America. And of course the opportunity to show the world the better stuff we are made of.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at June 1, 2007 06:15 PM

Gee, Toast, I'm conservative, and I never listen to talk radio of any kind -- I can't stand it. I came to the conclusion the sickie goings-on at Abu Ghraib, far from being some sort of officially-winked-at "torture," were the predictable end result of thirty-odd years of liberals destroying American society to "make it better," and ending up with young people who think its funny to force prisoners to make naked pyramids. I came to this conclusion using my own brain, not from programming from Master Rush Limbaugh and Co. Like the old "protest" song by Quicksilver, whatcha gonna do about me?

Posted by Andrea Harris at June 1, 2007 06:39 PM

Andrea you've just displayed the amazing deductive powers that make the modern conservative.

Not that I consider myself a liberal, but..

Jimmy Carter made them do it at Abu Ghraib!!Logic, redefined! And them think they are the natural heirs of the Greeks !

So what are your thoughts on Iraq? Oh, I shouldn't ask, silly me, wrong post. I await your intelligence displayed in complete fetid effervescence on another post.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at June 1, 2007 07:28 PM

"Jimmy Carter made them do it at Abu Ghraib!!Logic, redefined! And them think they are the natural heirs of the Greeks !

So what are your thoughts on Iraq? Oh, I shouldn't ask, silly me, wrong post. I await your intelligence displayed in complete fetid effervescence on another post."

Why? So you can make another retarded strawman response to avoid discussing what she really intended?

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 1, 2007 07:46 PM

Anonymous Moron wrote:
From the current issue of Time magazine:
Yes, this type of idiocy is the point of Don Surber's rant. Thanks for playing, Moron, but apparently you missed the message.

TnT wrote:
which is why McCain, the only Presidential candidate who has actually been tortured tells us that there can be no shades of grey in the matter. No hiding behind exemptions from POW status, no "advanced interrogation tactics", a full compliance with the spirit of the Geneva Conventions. Why so few conservatives can agree with him boggles the sensible mind And this has played its part in smearing us internationally.

There TnT goes again with his robotic rants about conservatives. First, not too many people, who visit Rand's site, are really conservative. Second, whether they are or not, I haven't read many people supporting torture.

The point, that apparently TnT cannot grasp, is that the United States does not condone torture and punishes its service men who participate in it. Now what is torture, and what TnT thinks is torture, may be two different things, but the US uses the Geneva Conventions as a guide (so should TnT). Don't run out and google some case of US torture, unless 1) you can prove it really happened, and 2) can prove that no one was held accountable, and 3) don't try to suggest someone up the line should be held accountable for another person's action.

Again, Don Surber doesn't support torture. His issue is why is the Press (New York Times, Washington Post, etc. etc.) silent about AQ use of torture. Perhaps if they were not so silent, people like TnT would get the message.

Posted by Leland at June 1, 2007 07:51 PM

"The point, that apparently TnT cannot grasp, is that the United States does not condone torture and punishes its service men who participate in it."

And how will this change if a Republican president is elected, after promising to much applause the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques."

The use of torture by Americans, condoned or wilfully ignored at high levels of government, has set us back DECADES in the battle against international terrorism. It doesn't matter whether the perpetrators were punished or not - it matters that that it happened to begin with. Do you think Joe Muslim in the market bothers to read the articles about the Abu Ghraib convictions? No. They just see the pictures of naked pyramids, beaten bodies, and blood on the walls.
Like it or not - this is how the world is. Hearts and minds, right?

Posted by reno 911 at June 1, 2007 10:04 PM

When an Abu Ghraib happens, we investigate it, using a and we try people, and we punish them

This is just not true. When Abu Ghraib happened, they investigated it all right, but they did not try everyone, and they did not punish everyone. One of the detainees at Abu Ghraib was murdered. His name was Manadel al-Jamadi and he was tortured to death by a CIA agent named Mark Swanner. Pentagon investigators concluded that al-Jamadi was a homicide victim, and they court-martialed some Navy Seals who had beaten al-Jamadi. The Seals argued, correctly, that although they did beat al-Jamadi, they didn't kill him. Swanner was in the room with him when he died, but he has not been indicted.

When al-Jamadi arrived at Abu Ghraib, he needed immediate medical care. He had contusions and fractures. Instead, Swanner strung up a hooded al-Jamadi from the bars of a prison window. Al-Jamadi asphyxiated, because his chest was pulled tight with broken ribs.

See the New Yorker article by Jane Mayer.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/11/14/051114fa_fact

Photographs of a dead and obviously beaten al-Jamadi were broadcast all over the world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AbuGhraibScandalGraner55.jpg

The people who posed with this corpse were punished for other crimes at Abu Ghraib; they had nothing to do with al-Jamadi's death.

Manadel al-Jamadi is not the only person who has been tortured by unpunished Americans in the war on terrorism. It is striking that after all of this history, Rand Simberg (and LarryJ too) would insist that no such thing has happened. Directly or indirectly, he is repeating false assurances from the government. Is this what it means to be a "neolibertarian"?

Posted by at June 1, 2007 10:24 PM

The larger point is *some* of us want to have two different sets of rules; one to apply to the US military and/or those they describe as 'conservative' or 'neo-cons' or 'neolibertarians' and another to apply to al-Qaeda and such. Nice work if you can get it, because it allows one to get all morally huffy while totally ignoring the idiocy of one's arguments.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

And I love the tacit admission that al-Qaeda and others are not following the Geneva Conventions but anyway deserve the protections of them. Nice double standard (not that I expected anything else).

Posted by JorgXMcKie at June 2, 2007 06:24 AM

Yesterday, on his radio program, Bill O'Reilly said that the New York Times wants to change the white, christian, male power structure of the country by importing 30 to 60 million foreigners. O'Reilly's point is that it is up to the American people by voting to change the power structure of the country. In other words, the New York Times wants to force its change on the country in an anti-democratic way by importing 10's of millions of foreigners.

When the New York Times is thought of in that way by a moderate, mainstream guy like O'Reilly, they are in trouble with the country. Too bad like on the borders, President Bush doesn't want to defend the country against the New York Times and their intelligence leaks, which have damaged the country and helped the enemy.

Covering Abu Ghraib like they have, ignoring the al Qaeda torture training manual like they have and their support for open borders are all of one piece. Destroy America as it is and they think they can replace democratic, christian, traditional America with a secular, progressive utopia.

The New York Times is insane.

Posted by Jabba the Tutt at June 2, 2007 06:30 AM

Yup, this is the exact point:

And I love the tacit admission that al-Qaeda and others are not following the Geneva Conventions but anyway deserve the protections of them. Nice double standard (not that I expected anything else).

Of course there is a double standard! D'oh!

America is America BECAUSE we adhere to a higher standard than al Qaeda. We are better than al Qaeda unless we voluntarily lower ourselves to their level with arguments such as these.

Posted by Bill White at June 2, 2007 06:52 AM

Just a comment on the value of what is news (man bites dog- something out of the norm) and what is not news (dog bites man - normal behavior). Using that logic for covering the news seems to me would rule out news about car bombs in Baghdad... that seems to be the normal behavior over there these days. What would be news - not expected or normal behavior - would be the changes that are taking place which indicate some progress being made in Irag. More areas where the security has been turned over the locals. More Sunnis fighting against Al-qaida.

Posted by Birt at June 2, 2007 06:53 AM

"Photographs of a dead and obviously beaten al-Jamadi were broadcast all over the world."

Yes. Largely, because they were helpful in the information war against the US.

So let's do the same with the AQ torture pictures and training munuals. If Muslims are outraged by such things, then let's make sure they know that AQ does them, to Muslims, with a severity, relish and malice aforethought that dwarfs anything done by the US even in its worst moments.

I mean, if there are people in the world laboring under the illusion that the US is "no better" than AQ (and there are such people even among American citizens) then it stands to reason that such stories are, in fact, news.

Posted by Ted Whileman at June 2, 2007 06:53 AM

Posted by Birt at June 2, 2007 06:53 AM

Posted by Birt at June 2, 2007 06:54 AM

This claim that Al Qaeda's torture manual and victims is not news is an invidious tool to continue (I believe, now, purposefully) aiding the enemy in the information aspect of this war. The media should understand that their actions do not leave the parties neutral on the battlefield, but rather assist, directly, the terrorists. That is why we see the stubborn refusal to study the effect of media manipulation and why we see so many apologists when they are caught, like al Reuters in the photo scams. The sooner the currently underway disintegration of our traditional media is complete, the better off we will all be.

Posted by roger rainey at June 2, 2007 07:11 AM

Give it up guys.

Some people are all about "Moral Superiority".

Even when their nice warm fuzzies are bought at the expense of some soldier far away having to die because of a peacetime ROE or some foreigner far away who is murdered because a "Freedom Fighter" had to have rights that even the Geneva convention doesn't require.

Waterboarding is torturous but it isn't torture. If you have any doubts what is, read AlQ's Torture For Dummies pamphlet and see the difference.

That's why the argument that this isn't news falls flat. People who have no experience with torture or real hardships for that matter think of torture as the worst thing they can imagine. Luckily most of us can't really imagine it fully.

Yes we all know AlQ tortures. But apparently we don't all know what torture actually is. Publish the manual, let us all clarify exactly what it is we are talking about.

Posted by wlpeak at June 2, 2007 07:47 AM

Exactly. The logic is not evenly applied - it is only applied when it can be used to promote an agenda. The anti-war agenda. Hence, a bomb goes off and people die - THAT'S NEWS! A school gets rebuilt or a hospital is functioning again despite the limitations and difficulties, treating hundreds of patients where before there was non treatment. YAWN.

Sorry, Greenwaldbots, but they're BOTH news. One is being systematically ignored and underreported, while the other is saturating the news cycles of the world ad nauseum. One car bomb is played over and over and over again on CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc., and the cultivation effect of limited news reporting makes it appear not only that there are multiple car bombs, but also that there is nothing but car bombs everywhere simultaneously. Which, for those interested in the facts and not the perception, is false.

But Glenn Greenwald said that you're full of crap. Or Rick Ellensburg. Or whoever the sock-puppet master who is being cited as an honest, objective authority on this the apologists for the media's silence on such issues.

Posted by radantelope@hotmail.com at June 2, 2007 07:51 AM

Per Glenn Greenwald: The reason that it is news that the left and left media torture George Bush, but not news that George Bush is defending America, is because the left and left media are a barbaric and savage political group which operates with no limits, whereas George Bush is supposed to be something different than that. Isn't it amazing that no one even needs to point that out?

Posted by Bacchus at June 2, 2007 07:57 AM

This comment thread is torture. Enough already.
I've even been tortured by a woman. This is too much and the weekend has barely started.

I agree. There is a direct line of causation extending from the liberal excesses of the last thirty years to Abu-Ghraib. In fact there is a direct line of causation from these liberal excesses and debauchery to Cheney's delight in waterboarding.

Andrea nailed it. Cheers.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at June 2, 2007 08:15 AM

Well then, thread over because TnT says so! No more opinions.

Cheers!

If this thread is "torture," than you're the one defining torture down.

Of course, AQ and Islamist detainees define torture as having Jews exist, women near them, hearing Eminem (certainly torture) or having the A/C up to a chilling 65 degrees while getting three hots and a cot.

Defining torture down. Google it.

Posted by Good Lt at June 2, 2007 08:25 AM

Torture is panties on the head. That is really something to cry about, dw!

See what you say when it's your hand under that drill.

Posted by Will White at June 2, 2007 08:50 AM

I said:

"Photographs of a dead and obviously beaten al-Jamadi were broadcast all over the world."

Someone responded:

Yes. Largely, because they were helpful in the information war against the US.

To the extent that it was, it certainly worked, because the Bush Administration never punished the man who killed al-Jamadi. All they have to do is stick to their word and punish torturers. Not just punish some torturers sometimes, eventually; but turn the wheels of justice every time, as soon as they see the crime. Which is not what they are doing, despite what they say and despite what Rand Simberg says.

Given that there are still American torturers who they haven't even tried to punish, all that the al Qaeda torture manual story amounts to is the proposition that two wrongs make a right. Al Qaeda tortures people, therefore don't criticize us for torturing people.

Well, everyone knows that Al Qaeda tortures people, and also beheads people. Daniel Pearl has only been mentioned in the New York Times on 350 occassions. The Times and other newspapers have already explained the point over and over again. They just don't believe that two wrongs make a right. That's the difference between them and Fox News, and apparently "neolibertarians" too.

Again, although it shouldn't need explaining, one reason that two wrongs don't make a right is that some of the people that the Bush Administration has tortured, or has had tortured by others, were never in Al Qaeda.

Posted by at June 2, 2007 09:10 AM

I have no issue with MSM outlets trumpeting the misdeeds at Abu Ghraib. I have no issue with them ignoring the AQ torture training manual. As has been said, we're the good guys and they are violent barbarians.

What I object to is the discount AQ seems to get because it is a pack of savages - no concomitant resolve to eliminate them, no determination to defeat them. No, in fact, in the face of AQ's big push right now, in Iraq, we are told that the solution is to retreat, to capitulate.

It seems to me that there are many, including many here, that give lip service to fighting AQ but who, when it comes down to brass tacks, are perfectly willing to give it the victory it seeks. Who's side are they on again?

Posted by Jeffersonian at June 2, 2007 09:16 AM

The "we hold ourselves to a higher standard" and "it's not news that AQ tortures people" BS is exactly the line of reasoning that ends us up w/ the UN Human Rights Council. You can't say that US use of waterboarding is just as bad as what AQ does, and then say that we can't look at what AQ does because there's no equivalence between the US and AQ. Of course it's wrong to say that US use of torture is ok because AQ is worse. But it's also wrong to say US torture is just as bad as AQ torture, because it so obviously is not.
Is it newsworthy to disclose what's in an AQ torture manual? Obviously. People need to understand more than simply that AQ tortures people, because as the media has shown us, rubbing red ink on someone and telling them it's someone's period is now torture.

Posted by JohnG at June 2, 2007 09:31 AM

It's pretty simple, really:

If there's "no difference" between the USA and Al-Qaeda, then we should be able to do whatever the heck we want to captives -- behead them, burn off their genitalia, anything. Because if there's no difference, then we should be able to do the same stuff they do.

If there _is_ a difference between the USA and Al-Qaeda -- in other words, if we really _are_ the good guys -- then for the media to trumpet US misdeeds and ignore AQ atrocities is a consciously evil act.

So which is it? Is the relativist worldview correct? Or is there really a difference between good and evil? Because if there is such a difference, a lot of American liberals have chosen evil.

Posted by Trimegistus at June 2, 2007 09:49 AM

Pictures published all over the internet, and the example given is wikipedia...

If you weren't there, you don't know what happened. No matter how much you scream and yell, publish pictures, rant, or rave, the simple fact remains...you weren't there, you don't know.

That the highest punished offender was an E-6 makes perfect sense, though perhaps the officer in charge should have received some sort of Letter of Reprimand for his lack of control over his troops on site. Some youthful degenerates decided to "teach a lesson" and they were punished for it.

Whether or not Mr Swanner is responsible for the prisoner's death can only be speculated on, except by THOSE THAT WERE THERE.

Posted by Mac at June 2, 2007 09:54 AM

Whether or not Mr Swanner is responsible for the prisoner's death can only be speculated on, except by THOSE THAT WERE THERE.

I see that this topic suddenly makes you Johnny Cochran. But the case of Manadel al-Jamadi and Mark Swanner is not like OJ Simpson, even though Simpson was also guilty as hell. When Simpson killed two people, he was the only one who "was there" who lived to tell. But when Manadel al-Jamadi was killed, there were plenty of witnesses. You should Jane Mayer's article, which I linked, for the full load of shameful details.

Besides, there are other torture incidents in which the guilty American was tried and even convicted, but not really punished. For instance, Abed Hamed Mowhoush, an Iraqi major general, was tortured to death on November 26, 2003 by Lewis Welshofer and Jeff Williams. He had been beaten by other American interrogators two days before, with broken bones to show for it. Welshofer and Williams crammed him into a sleeping bag and sat on him; he then suffocated and died. Welshofer was convicted of killing Mowhoush, but what was the sentence? A $6000 fine and two months of house arrest.

Now I am not a maximum-sentence type on the issue of criminal justice. But even if you believe in reasonable leniency, two months of house arrest is not a punishment that fits the crime of torturing a man to death. It's hardly a punishment at all.

So again, Rand Simberg is just wrong when he says, "we try people, and we punish them". Sometimes "we" try people, "we" convict them, and "we" don't really punish them. Of course the "we" isn't all of us in any of these cases, it's the Bush Administration. Many of the "we" have been wondering what it will take to get them to stop tarnishing America's reputation. Apparently, voting them out of Washington is a necessary step.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201941.html

Posted by at June 2, 2007 10:30 AM

We are a nation at war.

As informed citizens, we are SUPPOSED to have a clear understanding of what the enemy does. The lack of coverage of the AQ manual is a failure of American media organizations to inform the citizenry.

Relatedly:

If America is "America" because of its "higher standards", then those higher standards had better buy the additional authority needed to spread those higher standards across the planet. The world is too small for America to have its area of "higher standards" while other parts of the world actively export their "lower standards". That will result in America's "higher standards" getting undercut... by trade, cultural influences, bought politicians, etc.

In short, what do these "higher standards" get me?

If they do not get me the opportunity to act on their implications, then of what use are they? I am not prepared to accept national suicide in service of abstract "higher standards".

Those of you who carp on the "higher standards" will need to convince me of their utility, if you care to do so.

NOTE:

I come from a POV that:

There is no "international community".
There is no "international law".

These are both polite fictions.

Resentment against their own governments explains "why do 'they' hate 'us'".

Posted by MG at June 2, 2007 10:58 AM

I notice how puckett hand waves over the fact that no officer
was cashiered for abu ghraib.

Simberg doesnt even bother acknowledging this.

In the army, E-6's don't crap without permission from the
LT or the First Sargeant.

No wa Abu Ghraib occurred without command approval

Posted by anonymous at June 2, 2007 11:24 AM

What moronic drivel anonymous. Are you 12 years old? Do you really believe that no one in the military is capable of doing anything without a command from above?

You have obviously have either never been in the military and don't know what your talking about or if you have been in the military (highly unlikely) you are willfully lying. Either way you're a pathetic putz.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 2, 2007 12:00 PM

Col Pappas and Brig Gen Karpinski were given non-judicial punishment for the Abu Ghraib incidents. Pappas was fined and relieved of duty. Karpinski was relieved of duty and busted down to Col for dereliction of duty. Their careers were ended.

Since they did not perform the abuse nor order it, they weren't prosecuted as criminals.

Posted by stace at June 2, 2007 12:44 PM

AS I REMEMBER IT the general officer in charge of Abu Ghraib was reprimanded and demoted by the ARMY.
Then she was lauded by the liberal press and assorted anti war travellers as some sort of hero, as she hit the talk show circuit, firm in the insulating belief that the media would never blaim a Woman in the military and shielded by the defacto PC victimhood status that implies.
She even wrote a book, blaiming everybody from the Vice President to the Israelis, for her incompetence.
If her actions during the event didn't show it, her subsequient conduct certainly have been the very definition of disgrace.
She belongs in the stockade with England.

Posted by papertiger at June 2, 2007 01:06 PM

As ever, the America - haters try to have it both ways. OTOH the United States is an evil, imperialist, fascistic, racist, polluting, run-amok power. To them, it's no wonder that we "torture" --- what else would you expect? But when they are not arguing along this line, the same people argue that we should not condone "torture", even the watered-down kind involving heavy stress and sensory deprivation practiced against the AQ badguys, because we are "better" than they are--- AND EVEN IF those techniques were to save thousands of American lives. It's practically a matter of "argument du jour": one day it's a predictably "bad" America, the next it's "good" America gone wrong.

As for "real" torture not yielding results, it's an odd claim, one that assumes human beings engaging in the practice over the past 5,000 years failed to notice that it didn't work. But, of course, liberals today are SOOOO much perceptive and smarter! In any event George Tenet tells us that our "special interrogation practices" short of torture yielded a lot of valuable information. He should know. Michael Scheuer, a former CIA anti-terror analyst very critical of the agency, agrees.

As for only the "little people" getting into trouble over Abu Ghraib: Brig. General Janice Karpinski lost her command and was demoted by her failure to report and prevent the actions at Abu Ghraib. But no one has been able to prove that what went on there was "policy". Those who think it easy to prove criminal dereliction of duty to get at higher-ups far removed from the scene for simply not knowing what their subordinates far down the chain of command are doing are uninformed.

Posted by Jack at June 2, 2007 01:16 PM

Here's a thought experiment for you Fox News haters:

Count the number of conservatives regularly appearing on MSNBC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and ABC.

Then see how they compare with the number of liberal "regulars" on Fox News:

Juan Williams and Mara Liasson (both from NPR);

Mort Kondracke, Alan Colmes, Geraldo Rivera, Greta van Sustern, and Chris Wallace (all hosting or co-hosting their own shows, btw);

Bob Bickel and Susan Estrich (both Democratic party operatives);

and Kristina vanden Heuval, David Corn (of "The Nation" magazine), Joe Klein and the many other liberal pundits, political analysts, and advisors appearing on Fox News programs.

You still want to tell us that FOX is biased, but the other networks who have only a very few conservative commentators among them are "fair and balanced"?????

Would you further like to explain why all these libs do not refuse to appear on that "evil arm of the GOP", Fox News?

Why the Democratic party doesn't force their operatives to shun fox?

Why Democrat Congressmen and Senators continue to subject themselves to "unfair" and partisan Fox News interviews --- like the one registered Democrat Chris Wallace gave with Bill Clinton, in which Clinton accused Wallace of being "right wing"??

I'll let you all deal with your terminal case of cognitive dissonance. It's nothing a dose of Honesty and Integrity won't resolve. Snork!

Posted by ferris at June 2, 2007 01:29 PM

> The use of torture by Americans, condoned or wilfully ignored at high levels of government, has set us back DECADES in the battle against international terrorism.

What? You think Al Queda only started torturing because they think the U.S. did? You gibbering lunatic. Try doing at least the level of logic-checking that a four-year-old is capable of before hitting POST, because you are littering.

Posted by Ryan Waxx at June 2, 2007 02:01 PM

Minor nit:

Only the President can demote generals. The Army only recommends.

Posted by MG at June 2, 2007 02:24 PM

Anonymous said:

"Photographs of a dead and obviously beaten al-Jamadi were broadcast all over the world."

I responded:

"Yes. Largely, because they were helpful in the information war against the US." (see above)

And anonymous replied: "To the extent that it was, it certainly worked because the Bush Administration never punished the man who killed al-Jamadi. All they have to do is stick to their word and punish torturers. Not just punish some torturers sometimes, eventually; but turn the wheels of justice every time, as soon as they see the crime."

So you admit that the US does prosecute torturers. You just don't they do it sufficiently. However, it does not follow from this that AQ should get a pass at exposure from Western media.

Anonymous goes on: "Given that there are still American torturers who they haven't even tried to punish, all that the al Qaeda torture manual story amounts to is the proposition that two wrongs make a right. Al Qaeda tortures people, therefore don't criticize us for torturing people."

Bullshit. For what it's worth, I'm opposed to torture. I think it's wrong in three ways: it's (1) ineffective for interrogation, (2) bad PR for the US, and therefore bad strategy in the information war, and (3) it's morally wrong.

And I have never argued that the US has the "right" to torture because AQ does it. What I argued, if you'd bothered to read it, was that the Western media has an obligation to treat revelations about the AQ torture as news and devote as much attention to them as they do the US trangressions. You can't say, "Well, its just not interesting enough to report that innocent Iraqis are being tortured by AQ in the most brutal ways imaginable. Blah, blah, blag, dog bites man. Booooorrring." Or "If we disseminate this fact, it might help the US war effort by damaging AQ's reputation with the Muslim world, or making the US look not so bad in comparison. And Lord knows we can't have that."

Look. Torture is wrong and it needs to be exposed, widely and loudly, no matter who is doing it. By burying stories of AQ torture -- which is far more prevalent and severe and officially endorsed than anything the US can be said to have committed -- I believe the media is complicit in in that torture. I would think this would uncontroversial to anyone who cared about torture and its victims in the slightest.

Therefore, there should be interviews with survivors of AQ torture (if any can be found). If they can't be found, then the media should make we should make an effort to count and name the dead. There should be photographs and detailed descriptions of what they have suffered at the hands of AQ. The terrorists' manuals should be laid bare in the major media for the world to scrutinize. The Western media has an obligation especially to expose AQ torture far and wide, because (1) its no less wrong than US torture, and clearly much worse, and (2) the western liberal democracies are war with AQ, and that includes an information war. It's ridiculous for them to feel that they can sit it out on the sidelines.

If you don't agree, then frankly all your talk about torture is so much hot air in the service of your own opposition to the US, and, as George Orwell would have put it, your de facto sympathies with the forces of religious fascism and tyranny.

Posted by Ted Whileman at June 2, 2007 04:46 PM

So you admit that the US does prosecute torturers.

Yeah, just not all of them. Probably not even most of them. Most of the prosecutions have occurred when some detainee or other was either killed or photographed. Surely these are not the usual outcomes of torture.

The Western media has an obligation to treat revelations about the AQ torture as news

Sure, they have often done that.

And devote as much attention to them as they do the US trangressions.

No, there is no principle of equal time when it comes reporting news. News is much, much more important when there are a lot of people who don't want to believe it. When Rand falsely assured readers here that "we" punish torturers, he was speaking for a lot of people. He was following President Bush, who has issued the same false assurances many times. (Of course Bush meant to imply that the US punishes all torturers that it finds, not just some of them.) It's the dishonesty radiating from the top that keeps it big news.

Posted by at June 2, 2007 05:19 PM

So what you're saying is that AQ torture does not deserve the same attention of the world. In other words, the suffering and death of its victims are not as worthy of the our attention. It's a big yawn for you. "Blah, blah, blah, I know all about it. Spare me."

I find that reprehensible, frankly. It means that your interest and concern for the welfare of torture victims is one-sided. Which in turn means that I don't believe that you care very much about torture at all. For you, it's only a means to the greater end of villifying the US and the Bush administration. All your outrage is merely a rationalization for a political position that you hold for other reasons that have nothing much to do with people's suffering and death. For you torture is only "interesting" if it exposes what you perceive as the hypocrisy of the democratic West. Otherwise, you could care less.

If you claim to deplore torture, then you should and seek to expose it, and decry it, in all its specifics, whenever it occurs. But you don't. In fact, when anyone but the US commits it, you're just bored.

I have to wonder: If, as you claim, AQ's torture of the citizens of Iraq is so ubiquitous as to be beneath your interest -- its brutality so commonplace that it barely deserves mention in the press -- then why aren't you more dedicated to combatting AQ?

And if you are dedicated to combatting AQ, then why can't you get on board with the drive to expose its crimes, in all its gory details, to everyone?

Posted by Ted Whileman at June 2, 2007 06:45 PM

So what you're saying is that AQ torture does not deserve the same attention of the world.

No, that's not what I'm saying. In offering this characterization, you're conflating media attention with all possible kinds of world attention. The victims of Al Qaeda certainly deserve all due attention from the forces prepared to fight Al Qaeda. At the moment, the media is not all that well-positioned to do that, because, basically it has already said what needs to be said. But yes, potential victims of Al Qaeda should be saved by Green Berets or whoever.

It's the same principle as for any other kind of mayhem in the world. More than 16,000 Americans are murdered every year, and yes, each and every one deserves attention, just not usually from the media. Media attention is often outright bad for a murder case, however important police attention may be.

And if you are dedicated to combatting AQ, then why can't you get on board with the drive to expose its crimes, in all its gory details, to everyone?

Because, as with some other types of evil, more media exposure won't make the world safer. The government, not journalists, should go after Al Qaeda.

The right thing for journalists to expose is the extent to which the government fight against Al Qaeda is corrupt and distracted. The government, at least under George Bush, has just about botched the whole fight. The original Al Qaeda hides in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but they dropped Iraq on top of that fight. They were supposed to round up Al Qaeda fighters and prove their crimes, but instead they are covering for their own mistakes and crimes in Guantanamo. We'll never win against Al Qaeda until they clean the law-evading mentality out of the executive branch and, among other reforms, close Guantanamo. They have already cut outrageous plea bargains with some Guantanamo detainees --- who may well have real terrorists connections --- just to cover their tracks.

Posted by at June 2, 2007 07:08 PM

For the record, I'd like a definition of torture that wasn't based on conditionals.

I've been hotter and colder than the U.S. prompted "torture". I've had to stay awake for days studying for finals, 3 days of sleep deprivation isn't exactly a surprise on a college campus. I've had more dB of sound and brighter lights shone in my face at a concert... for hours on end.

So, are houses without central air in certain climates, colleges, and concerts "instruments of torture"? I doubt anyone would claim that... until the participant is a prisoner; then the definition changes.

However if someone cuts out your eyeball, that always seems to be torture.

Which leads me to believe that these aren't the same thing. Either we need a new word for "sometimes torture", or we need a new word for "really torture", or we're going to have significant linguistic issues with the defintion.

Right now, if I told you I was kidnapped and "tortured", would you want to know specifically what they did to warrant this statement? It seems we've weakened the word to an almost useless level... heck, I might just mean he dressed me funny, or got ink on me claiming it was something else... or he might have cut off 6 of my toes, and took most of the skin off my back with a whip, while electrocuting me.

I'm worried about a word that can mean anything and nothing. But maybe that's just me. And for me, reading some of the unconcerned comments above, is... oh, you know.

Posted by Gekkobear at June 2, 2007 10:06 PM

Torture...what is torture?

A very important distinction, I think, is in the methods and the intent. Jihadi torture includes physical harm, up to and including killing the victim. You can't honestly compare American interrogation methods to that. There's a huge difference.

Liz to Rosie: "Are you saying that American's are the terrorists?"

As kids, my older brother would occasionally drag me through the water by my feet, which one could argue was torture. It's very similar to "waterboarding" because if I couldn't hold my breath long enough to keep the water from going up my nose, I'd gag on it. That was his plan, I suspect, to make me gag. Ah,...kids and their torture! I did survive it without too much mental trauma. Can I have him prosecuted now?

Posted by Bacchus at June 3, 2007 10:21 AM

Torture...what is torture?

Liz to Rosie: "Are you saying that American's are the terrorists?"

Posted by Bacchus at June 3, 2007 10:24 AM

Sorry for the double. Firefox gagged on that post. :)

Posted by Bacchus at June 3, 2007 10:26 AM

Yes you can, because in some incidents, American interrogators have tortured people to death.

Posted by at June 3, 2007 10:36 AM

Yes you can, because in some incidents, American interrogators have tortured people to death.

Are you saying that Americans are the terrorists?

Posted by Bacchus at June 3, 2007 10:43 AM

Are you saying that Americans are the terrorists?

Frankly, "terrorism" is an overused word. Especially if you say "the" terrorists, you make it sound like all Americans are birds of a feather.

The vast majority of Americans are decent people who are certainly not terrorists, nor criminals at all.

But there are bad people in every society. There are Americans who have tortured detainees in the war on terrorism, and even in some cases tortured them to death. Many of them haven't been punished at all. Most of them have had no more punishment than a few months of house arrest.

The men at the top who don't want to punish these perpetrators, even as they insist that the US doesn't torture people, are making America look bad. They need to be replaced.

Posted by at June 3, 2007 11:00 AM

Sorry, not buying into your guilt trip. Not saying they're perfect but I'm not buying that they're anywhere near as unaccountable as you're making them out to be. If you had to spend time as a prisoner, you know you'd rather spend it in American custody over al-Qaeda custody. Admit it. Why even try to compare the two?

Posted by Bacchus at June 3, 2007 01:20 PM

Sorry, not buying into your guilt trip.

It's not a guilt trip, it's a vote trip. (Unless you were involved in these violent interrogations yourself.) We Americans should vote for leaders who do not tolerate torture. If they just claim that they don't tolerate torture, but then hide it, define it away, and go soft on it, that's not good enough. If they compare themselves favorably to Al Qaeda, that's not good enough either.

Almost any criminal could make the argument, "Get off my case, I'm not as bad as Al Qaeda". The only correct response is, "Sorry, that doesn't make you innocent."

Posted by at June 3, 2007 02:14 PM

All of you guys who cam over from Glen's site should check out the rest of the board and stay awhile.

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 3, 2007 02:25 PM

It's not a guilt trip or a vote trip; it's truthiness!!! haha

Posted by Bacchus at June 3, 2007 03:15 PM

Holy God, the comments have 'sploded! :)

Cecil: IF you had been reading for content, you'd have noticed I was replying to someone who was saying that what happened at Abu Ghraib wasn't torture. I was pointing out that they were full of it. That's it, full stop.

Pointing out that we're supposed to be the "Good Guys" and not doing the same stuff as Saddam? Well, based on some of the stuff that was being posted in the comments, I felt a reminder wasn't out of line.

Posted by W. Ian Blanton at June 5, 2007 04:01 PM

Hey. The person that posts here anonymously as "", are you Rory Kennedy? Just listened to the Dennis Miller interview with Rory Kennedy (recorded on Jun 5). It's absolutely amazing how closely Rory's arguments line up with yours. Where were you between 11am and noon on Jun 5 and what were you doing? Do you have an alibi?

Check it out: Find the "Audio Highlights" box and then click on "Archives."

http://dennismillerradio.com/site

Posted by Bacchus at June 6, 2007 07:36 AM

Post a comment