Redstate

And perhaps more. Prisoners have died, indeed. And presumably those deaths are being investigated (at least according to the news reports) and if the ones that "might" be a result of abuse turn out to be so - then we'll all support the punishment of those responsible.

Appalling abuse? To whom? What Durbin actually said doesn't really cause me to lose much sleep - certainly not to the extent that would demand closing a prison. If the incidents are true, and someone's responsible for acts and tactics that been accepted for 20 some odd years - what has changed? Only that they are occuring in a war with which Durbin profoundly disagrees, I think.

Here's a question I'd love to see researched: per capita, where do we see more serious injury and death: among prisoners in military custody, or among prisoners in the general population of American prisons? We've held some 65,000 prisoners in military custody? Where might they be safer? The general population of an American prison? I'd love to see that argument made.

Just off the top of my head, a non-exhaustive list of things an adult should do in this situation:

Maintain perspective.

Avoiding handing the enemy propaganda during a time of war.

Gather evidence of, or push for investigations into, cases of suspected wrongdoing.

Require a larger body of evidence to indict U.S. forces than a redacted, informal email summary written by an unknown FBI employee.

Give U.S. troops the benefit of the doubt when all the facts are not known.

Failing that, give them the opportunity to defend themselves from specific charges by specific accusers.

Try the cases in courts of law or courts martial, as opposed to the floor of the Senate and the court of public opinion.

Punish lawbreakers.

I'll agree and concede everything you present, and doesn't it still give the Senator an opportunity to act as an adult as well? Will he say anything about the effects of his statements on Al Jazeera and others? Need he? Shouldn't his "apology"/explanation/rationalization be focused for external audiences as well as partisans? Shouldn't he take a chance and reach out to the opposition?

I think he will, and I think quieter senators on both sides will help him, but all the quiet may be deafening, and we're right back to your concluding question, which is where we started, and which the past few days of partisan heat have not particularly added to, and wasn't he talking about the energy bill, and is someone proposing offshore drilling at Gitmo or what?

Oh - and torture is not acceptable, but effective interrogation is necessary.

....we've already seen in the case of Abu Ghraib that those responsible are not punished: lower enlisted and NCOs are given courts-martial, and some officers are shuffled about.  The Army is great about many things, but punishing its own in wartime -- what's Lieutenant Calley doing these days? -- is not among them.

As far as closing Guantanamo goes, in his remarks, Durbin explicitly says this isn't about that.

You're right: the cites by Durbin weren't particularly unusual.  But his cites aren't even close to the beginning nor the end of the specific phenomenon he's addressing.

Finally, if we're going to argue that American military prisons are better than its civilian ones(!), I'd say that's probably true, and also that that's a poor standard to shoot for.

But will he?  No?  Can't control him.  Ourselves, on the other hand....

We hold our soldiers to a very high ethical standard, and the overwhelming majority of them are men and women of incredible bravery, honor, and courage who maintain those high standards.

Durbin's comments were reprehensible not only for slandering our troops, but because like the boy who cried wolf, they drown the real incidents of torture in a sea of spurious accusations.

I have little moral qualms about using coercive methods of interrogation, and agree that Secretary Rumsfeld was correct in banning techniques that would lead to undue physical harm. However, that is not a license for torture and murder.

Those responsible for such acts should face the strictest punishments of military justice - and at the same time politicians like Dick Durbin should not be throwing out morally repugnant and odious comments that only diminish the truly unacceptable incidents of torture.

Maintain perspective.

Done!

Avoiding handing the enemy propaganda during a time of war.

Agreed!  That's why we shouldn't kill or torture prisoners.

Require a larger body of evidence to indict U.S. forces than a redacted, informal email summary written by an unknown FBI employee.

We all know that's not the totality of the evidence.

Give U.S. troops the benefit of the doubt when all the facts are not known.

Who isn't?

Try the cases in courts of law or courts martial, as opposed to the floor of the Senate and the court of public opinion.

Sorry, but the United States Senate gets to talk about whatever the heck it wants to -- as well it should.  Constitutional bodies and all that.

Punish lawbreakers.

Like at Abu Ghraib?  How about in cases where the AG has determined that no law applies?  What then?

Which is why I think we'll now see a race to silence. It will be interesting to see how long leftblogs keep this going - I suspect a bit longer than here, but not as long as talk radio.

That's really all I can say.  

So Senator Durbin doesn't need to be censored.  I came to that conclusion on my own.  Perhaps the reason that I am so "cavalier" about the treatment of detainees in U.S. military custody is because I assume that the "adults" are already handling the issues in question.

Of course any case in which a detainee dies is suspect and anathema to what we stand for as a country.  But whipping ourselves will only get us so far, and it won't stop idiotic comments from the likes of Dick Durbin.  Otherwise, with friends like us, the military doesn't need enemies.

You probably should have mentioned in your main post that you don't trust the U.S. military to appropriately police itself and punish offenders, and that suggesting actual investigations and court martials (you know, with like, evidence and stuff) doesn't measure up as "adult" enough by your standards.

If I'd seen your response to krempasky before I posted I wouldn't have wasted my time trying to participate in this discussion.

Agreed!  That's why we shouldn't kill or torture prisoners.

We don't condone the use of true physical torture or the murder of prisoners. We make every effort to punish those who engage in such reprehensible acts. We can and should do more, but the argument that the entire military or American society bears the responsibility for the unsanctioned and horrendous actions of a few strikes me as being an unintentionally odious argument.

There are some very real abuses going on that need to be dealt with - swifty and completely. This firestorm over Gitmo strikes me as nothing more than a smokescreen that is allowing truly egregious behavior to be swept under the rug.

To your question, and I think you know it:

Let Amnesty International send people into all of the prisons, including Camp X-Ray, and document all of the treatment so that it can be placed into the public record.  Obviously Senators in the United States Congress have lost all faith that the military is treating its prisoners well; investigative reports by the New York Times have exposed how innocent men have died in custody; the abuses at Abu Ghraib have now become an indelible stain on the American Military, and the public is aware of all these things, whether Dick Durbin is in the news or not.

So I think, really, that it's time that we do what Clinton thinks we should do, which is to close it down or clean it up.  And since the only acceptable way to "clean it up" is to allow Amnesty International to investigate more fully, that's what we should do.  While we're at it, let's invite some reporters from the New York Times to tag along.  

Trevino, the way you phrase this question, there isn't any way for the United States Military to continue to operate these prisons without allowing third parties in to inspect them.  So there you have it, right here on RedState.

Let's be adult about it.  Because if the suspicion of the military is as bad as you're showing us it is, and if the abuse is as despicable as the New York Times suggests, obviously the military is running the detention centers with a bunch of delinquents and people who are seeking to avoid punishment for their misdeeds.  They can't be trusted any longer, they never could be, and so what everyone has written at Common Dreams for so long about the horrors of the treatment of prisoners by the U.S. military is simply irremediable damage, and it is time to open the gates, send the abusive interrogators to be tried in muslim countries asking for them, and admit that the mistakes of our soldiers have condemned the war effort in the United States and elsewhere.  We lose.  

What else, really, is there to get from your post, or from John Cole's?  Should the military launch a PR campaign to try to convince people that the abuses haven't really happened or won't happen in the future?  Obviously all the people who committed them need to be tried as war criminals.  In fact, we can try the interrogators and people working at Guantanamo right alongside their captives.  I think you've broken a completely new path of argument with this:  try BOTH the detainees and their captors, and make sure we follow up the chain of command -- all the way to Rumsfeld, who surely must have known about all these hideous goings-on as SecDef.  Right?

Let's be adult about it, Trevino, and say that we decide to do something else.  Why not release all the prisoners at Guantanamo and give them all $500,000 US dollars and make them sign a promise never to attack the United States again?  We should also release the prisoners we're still holding in undisclosed locations, of course, but only after allowing Amnesty International to vouch for and carefully document their treatment and/or mistreatment.  I'm sure that there are lots of reporters here and around the world who will be interested to tell their very adult stories, so let's be adult about it.

I agree with your assessment of both Durbin's comments and the prisons in question, and you are spot on as to what should be our focus in the coming weeks and months.  It's a very reasonable point of view IMO, and I'm not sure why condemning reprehensable behavior and demanding future accountability and transparency is branding as a solely "liberal" cause.

Basically I'm thinking of two bipartisan commissions:

• One for finding out the facts on the actual and alledged abuses. Also tasked with finding whether it was systematic or not, without going into causes.
  
• One bip. com. focussing on the most probable causes of the stuff found by the first commission. Basically tasked with weighting individual guilt (bad apples) versus situation at location versus lack of clear orders from above. This is tricky, lickly messy and certainly will be spun like mad by both sides, but it would at least get various voices on the record regarding the matter. IMHO that's preferable to everyone having their own pet theory.
  
• A public debate about "enemy combattants". I believe this is a major part of the problem and needs to be adressed by Congress, not by lawyers trying to justify the administrations preferred course. At the time that may have been the right intermediate solution, but I think this crutch no longer suffices. If current law really can't deal with these people, it's about time new laws were made instead of relying on loopholes in the existing ones.
  

(IANAL, but I believe every indivual has a right to his/her "day in court" if only as a necessary limit on state power. In order to protect intelligence sources, one might set up a scheme wherein at set intervalls consecutively more evidence needs to be provided. Say -just making this up- up to 3 months without trial, the sworn testimony of a security person that the person in question is likely guilty/dangerous to detain someone for up to 1 year. Redacted reports submitted to the judge for keeping someone 2 years and a full trial beyond that.)

- Some frankness. I gave up on making people familiar with signal detection theory, but it would be mighty fine if all politicians concerned could be honest with the public about one thing. You're going to fuck up no matter where you draw the line. If you're going hardline, few terrorists will slip through the net, but occassionaly you'll end up with a dead taxi driver. If you're going soft, terrorist will slip through the system.

I for one would tend to err on the side of caution and accept a greater risk of some terrorist getting away. Mostly, because I believe the war is primarily an ideological one and under that perspective "being better" counts much more as does the degree to which one is better. Also, because of this perspective, I believe the harm done by radicalising an innocent is graver than the harm done by letting a terrorist slip, because in both cases there is a second chance to catch the terrorist, but if the systems turns innocents (or those around them) into terrorists, we end up with one terrorist more.

It would of course be great to have some actual data to access the relative risks.

I just wanted to point out one thing:

Now, two caveats here: no one, to my knowledge, has died at Camp X-Ray; and the specific techniques witnessed by Durbin's FBI source were, I am fairly sure, accepted US military interrogation tactics as long as twenty years ago.

This is what the Army has to say about coercive interrogation methods:

PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF FORCE

The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor. condoned by the US Government. Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. However, the use of force is not to be confused with psychological ploys, verbal trickery, or other nonviolent and noncoercive ruses used by the interrogator in questioning hesitant or uncooperative sources.

The psychological techniques and principles outlined should neither be confused with, nor construed to be synonymous with, unauthorized techniques such as brainwashing, mental torture, or any other form of mental coercion to include drugs. These techniques and principles are intended to serve as guides in obtaining the willing cooperation of a source. The absence of threats in interrogation is intentional, as their enforcement and use normally constitute violations of international law and may result in prosecution under the UCMJ.

Additionally, the inability to carry out a threat of violence or force renders an interrogator ineffective should the source challenge the threat. Consequently, from both legal and moral viewpoints, the restrictions established by international law, agreements, and customs render threats of force, violence, and deprivation useless as interrogation techniques.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/fm34-52/index.h
tml

before an acceptable conclusion can be reached on this one.

Are we at war or not?

Do we recognize that we are at war, and confidently allow our military to use accepted and customary interogation and confinement techniques while carrying out its duties?

Or, is terrorism a legal matter, and the prisoners at Camp X-Ray should have access to our courts and the protection of due process and all that implies, because we're not sure we trust the military?

How one answers these questions is an important factor in the successful procecution of the GWOT.

It's also a pretty good indicator of which side one comes down on the torture issue.

This discussion is everything that the discussion among our political leaders is not, tempered, well-reasoned and articulate.  I believe both sides of Gitmo can be argued, and I am baffled about why it is a partisan debate (I am a democrat by the way) beyond the fact that it is Bush who is in office, so he supports and the Dems detract.  So thank you for the adult debate.

In terms of the question on hand, we have to accept as a democratic society that information detrimental to our own policies is going to be publicized. That is a factor that has to be integrated into any policy strategy.  It was clearly not factored into Gitmo and that is why we are in the embarrassing position we are in today.  

I believe that the publication of these abuses is doing harm in the war on terror.  The question I want answered, by people who do not have a political stake in the answer, is whether or not the information provided by the detainees outweighs the negative impact of the revelations of abuse.  That is the metric I would use to determine whether or not to shut them down.

Please consult the extremely large-type banner above your posting box and note that Profanity is not tolerated.

Regards.

Because it's not that clear what the war is against. Terrorism is a tactic and Wahabism is an ideology and neither are AFAIK entities upon which a conventional "war" can be declared. So I believe bickering about wether the term war applies is not useful, since the situation is in many ways unique and IMO does not fit into traditional categories.

With regard to consequences, I -perhaps naively- believe the answer is obvious: this war requires more than the military, but can't be fought without the military. Then again, I was under the impression the same applied to the Cold War, so it shouldn't be that controversial.

Durbin was not talking about "the troops" and you know it.  He was criticizing a POLICY of mistreating prisoners.

The ones saying it is "the troops' who are acting unilateraly and not following policies - and then hanging them out to dry for doing what they were told - are the ones not supporting the troops.

"I believe that the publication of these abuses is doing harm in the war on terror."

It's the ABUSE that is doing the harm.

You should demand that your government cease these practices immediately, AND ALSO THAT THEY STOP BLAMING THE TROOPS.

I had to reread it to find the profanity, but there it is, which brings to mind an observation.

I'm also watching this debate over at Kos, and it is so hard to follow, knowing that w/in 3 posts you'll find extended profanity.

Why cannot the left clean it up and post a bold profanity prohibition as well?

Note - the folks at LGF can swear it up as well, so it's not uniquely partisan, but it seems more prevalent at Kos.

Why it would have been difficult for you to read the post in its entirety. Not an endeavor for the faint of heart, and best left to the trained professionals. :-)

Note - the folks at LGF can swear it up as well, so it's not uniquely partisan, but it seems more prevalent at Kos.

That's why I don't read the comments at LGF, or any of the material at Kos. I'm glad things are the way they are here.

Seriously if or rather when most of my fellow posters at RedState weren't posting here, I can imagine them working at their careers, studying, spending time with their families, participating in their church/synagogue/mosque, or any number of meaningful and productive endeavors.

But when I look at Kos and LGF, I have to think but for the Internet, these guys would be scribbling profanity on bathroom stalls.

but for the Internet, these guys would be scribbling profanity on bathroom stalls.

While perhaps applying to the commenters on both sites (don't read the LGF comments, but I've been told they're raunchy), there is a minor difference.

I would say the above sentence also applies to Kos specifically.

Not so to Charles Johnson.

My previous comments would apply to many (admittedly not all) of the posters of at Kos and LGF and the proprietor of Kos but not the proprietor of LGF.  

I did not realize this would fall under the rule at the time of writing - to be honest, I didn't even think about it-, but upon reflection can see it does. Thanks for pointing it out.

aren't down in Gitmo or at Abu Graib doing that stuff.

And if you believe the actions are wrong, anyone who had history and knows anything from the Nurmburg trial knows "following orders" is not an excuse, and it shouldn't be.

Soldiers are obligated to obey only lawful orders-orders to "torture" or mistreat a prisoner are not lawful.

really separate what is going on from the troops, without details of what is happening.

Certainly specific troops and interrogators may have done something, but none of those memos indicate-that this is systemic or even common.

Even Durbins memo seems to indicate the guy only saw the restraints twice (unless he learned that new math a "a couple" no longer means two).

The facts are that the US has handled thousands of prisoners over the course of 4 years, and less than 1% have died while in custody.  

We also need to grow up and stop calling minor mistreatments torture and stop the Nazi comparisons-it doesn't help the debate, and it hangs a label on a lot of men and women who don't deserve it.

And as much as the left wants to call playing loud music, keeping prisoners awake etc torture, those things aren't, and fankly I see them as legitimate techniques.  

Leaving prisoners restrained for extended periods of time, is not a good idea, but there actually are situtations when you do leave them restrained (if the prisoner is acting violently towards our soldiers anytime the restraints are removed, I can see requiring restraints any time that inmate is out of his cell-that is actually a legitimate prison security technique-although it is rare that a prison would have an inmate out of their cell for more than a few hours at a time).

Methods matter.

quibbles over style and to the heart of the matter.

JayReding said: ". . .the argument that the entire military or American society bears the responsibility for the unsanctioned and horrendous actions of a few strikes me as being an unintentionally odious argument."

The point is, whether the entire military bears the responsibility, the entire military suffers the consequences. So do the rest of us. Instances of torture fuel the Iraq insurgency and inspire suicidal terrorist acts against civilians in countries other than Iraq. Allegations of torture discourage Muslims from cooperating with U.S. policies because they appear to be collaborators.

That's why we have to prosecute torture vigorously and openly. We can try to minimize it all we want, but the rest of the world isn't going to go along with it.  Soldiers are going to protect each other, and that's natural. It's probably essential to their mission. That's why self-policing isn't quite enough in this instance.

for mentioning the dichotomy of treatment between junior NCOs and officers at Abu Ghraib.  That continues to stick in my craw.

Thank you John Cole and Trevino for being so thoughtful and bringing up this matter. Guantanamo, and the American mainstream's acceptance of it, certainly seems to be elephant in the room which no one talks about in American politics at least to these foreign eyes.

Reading this debate as a foreigner it strikes me that the reason you guys are so dismissive of what (to me) are really immoral, and what I would once thought of as unamerican, practices is because you see the detainees as a totally different class of people which you disassociate yourselves from completely.

Theres seems to be little or no interest in considering their right to dignity let alone the idea that they are innocent until proven guilty or in any way empathise with them as human beings.

As distasteful as that may be to some of you that is what they are. If they are the jihadist terrorists directly responsible for the atrocities of 9/11 the best thing you could do would be to try them- air their specific crimes in a public forum, tye them to them and through your fairness totally repudiate their methods and ideology.

If the evidence is not there to do this how can you be sure of their guilt? if secret courts and military tribunals with lower standards of evidence would not be acceptable for your own citizens why should they be acceptable for foreigners?

Being dismissive of their rights, torturing prisoners and acting like the tough guy isnt going to make others think 'well better not to mess with the US they are unmerciful' at least not as much as I fear some of your officials might hope.

Much stronger and widespread is the anger and resentment such behaviour fosters in whole communities when they see people being treated in exceptional manner that you would not dream of treating your own citizens in. This feeling is pervasive and has strengthened anti-Americanism (which is really anti-Bushism) everywhere - not just in Muslim areas.

Though in Muslim areas you can imagine the effect. If Americans were being mistreated in another country would your reaction be to say 'lets back off, those guys are mean'. No it would strenghten your resolve and win new converts to your cause.

Do not misunderstand I am not accusing anyone as being racist, (at least not in the traditional sense that people are prejuidiced against a whole race which I dont think is true).

I simply mean that it seems that Americans know that those at Gitmo are completly different from them and everyone they know (and that there is no chance that them or anyone they know will end up there) which makes the inhumane treatment of the detainees much more acceptable.

I now you will disagree but I am interested in hearing the other side.

are and were being mistreated.  Except they got their heads lopped off.

They just don't get as much media attention.

My issue isn't so much that some of these actions are okay-but that they are being called torture and they are being used in a comparison to Nazi's.

Some things being called torture that just aren't-sorry Koran flushing-as offensive as it may be, just plain flat out isn't torture.  I don't think the prolonged use of restraints is torture (unless said person is being suspended from the ceiling with them), I don't advocate it or think it is fine and dandy, but I don't think it is torture-and I can actually see situations where the prolonged use of restraints may be neccessary (if a prisoner was being overly violent and threatening themselves and others-the restraints would be a way of protecting the detainee and those holding him-this type of restraint is used in prisons and psych wards pretty frequently-shoot watch a take down of a violent prisoner in one of those prison shows on Discovery-the prisoner isn't just restrained, but they are hog tied and left that way until they are calm, then the restraints are removed).

Let's call torture torture, and call everything else what it is-innappropriate treatment/mistreatment whatever, but it isn't torture, and let's leave off with the Nazi et al comparisons.

When the US government sets up a policy to systematically kill detainees, then we can start with the Nazi talk, but right now the Nazi comparisons don't belong in the debate.

the effects of his statements on Al Jazeera and others?

I have heard variations of this for a long time now.

Do us all a favor.  Go to Aljazeera's Web Site, search for 'Durbin' and count the references.

Do the same at Pakistan's Dawn and India's Rediff site.

These reach the bulk of the world's Muslim population.  Before we tie ourselves into knots wondering about the 'effect' on 'the enemy', let us get some facts straight.

As someone who has considerable exposure to that part of the world, I can assure you of a few things:

1. Everybody in Asia knows about Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, long before Durbin compared it to actions that may have been carried out by Nazis and Pol Pot.  By the way, I can assure you that most people in the Middle East have never heard of Pol Pot or Soviet Gulags




2. They have already formed their opinion of the US as either a bully or as a useful tool (to get their political agendas going), long before any of this stuff happened




3. Despite any public displays of 'outrage' from the Middle East, this kind of stuff is standard practice in those prisons.  I have personal knowledge of this

So, this is not about what 'they' will think or how 'they' will use this statement.  'They' have largely ignored it.

This is about us Americans.  This is about what we believe and what we profess are our core values.

Torture of any form should be anathema to all Americans - Red, Blue or Purple. No amount of BS from Hannity can convince me that the 'ticking time bomb' scenario justifies torture (or the variant- 'he has your daughter buried in a hole in the ground for ransom').  Torture is ineffective and counterproductive. Period.

We should all be condemning any use of torture by American Citizens. On Principle.

Comments by: Just Me  

>Although you know Americans are and were being mistreated.  Except they got their heads

> lopped off.

Are you really saying that the US should take as its standard for reasonable behaviour the actions of the insurgents in Iraq?

Excuse me for being facetious, but that is essentially what you are saying with this statement.

Also are'nt you now comparing the actions of American's with the actions of the insurgent's in a similar way as Durbin did to Pol Pot etc.?

Smart, and smart politically.  In a year, Durbin's silly remarks will have been forgotten; yet, we'll still be dealing with the aftereffects of Aub Ghraib (et al.).  

....

My previous comments would apply to many (admittedly not all) of the posters of at Kos and LGF and the proprietor of Kos but not the proprietor of LGF.

Frankly, I'd say far worse regarding the proprietor of LGF -- and this despite the fact that my voting history almost certainly matches up better with Johnson's [recent] history than Kos's.  Out of deference to those who respect the man, however, I'll stop there.

If Americans were being mistreated in another country would your reaction be to say 'lets back off, those guys are mean'. No it would strenghten your resolve and win new converts to your cause.

Now just how many converts have we won to our cause?

Just how much coverage do these action actually get?  Anyone done a media study of how many times Nick Berg's beheading made the front page of the NYT verses Abu Graib or Gitmo?

That was my point, not that we should act like them, but that our citizens (and others especially the Iraqi's themselves who support democracy in their own country) are being captured and treated far worse than anything that has been done to any detainee, but the cries of the US being a bunch of Nazi's continues.

Did you read about the true torture house the Marines uncovered and freed some Iraqi citizens from?  That is real torture, but I bet that story got far less media coverage than Durbin's Gitmo accussations and comments.

I don't think we should be harming detainees, I just object to what we are labeling as torture and I strongly object to the ridiculous Nazi/Stalin/Pol Pot comparisons.

Just me said

>Now just how many converts have we won to our cause?

I would be surprised to hear that the stories of torture of innocent American captives in Iraq led to a weakening in American resolve. Obviously that is the insurgents objective but I think they are, to put it mildly, completely misguided.

My point is that such acts are expressions of frustration, anger and ignorance from the side who perpretrate them and they actually have the opposite effect to that which is desired - their actions only strengthen opposition from their enemy.

>Jus how much coverage do these action actually get?  Anyone done a media study of how many times >Nick Berg's beheading made the front page of the NYT verses Abu Graib or Gitmo?

I know of no such comparison. I do know that I read and was appalled by the murder of Berg. It doesnt mean I am any less appalled by the goings on in Guantanamo. The two do not, and should not bear any comparison.

One was the act of a group of ignorant and savage thugs, whose actions and ideology are to be repudiated entirely. The other were the actions of a sovereign democratic nation which was and still is in many ways the model for the rule of law and due process in the world.

>That was my point, not that we should act like them, but that our citizens (and others >especially the Iraqi's themselves who support democracy in their own country) are being >captured and treated far worse than anything that has been done to any detainee, but the cries >of the US being a bunch of Nazi's continues.

But should the US not be held to a higher standard that a group of terrorists? Everyone condemns the terrorists and rightly dismisses them.

America is a different story. It has real influence and power and it sets the standard in many ways.

>Did you read about the true torture house the Marines uncovered and freed some Iraqi citizens >from?  That is real torture, but I bet that story got far less media coverage than Durbin's >Gitmo accussations and comments.

Actually I did see the reports of the torture house, saw pictures of the rope and could only imagine the horror that went on inside there. And that was on a local news station (in Ireland).

As for Durbin's comments they have honestly got zero play here, I read about it online.  They may have been mentioned in some newspapers but frankly I doubt it. I would bet that the controversy is seen as a domestic political squabble by news editors here.

>I don't think we should be harming detainees, I just object to what we are labeling as torture >and I strongly object to the ridiculous Nazi/Stalin/Pol Pot comparisons

But you seem to belittle such detainee abuse by comparing it with the terrorists' actions. And you seem to save your real outrage for those who seek to hold the US to higher standard than criminial regimes.

a number of prisoners have died as a result of their treatment at our hands I really don't know of any other word except "torture" to describe such treatment. Unless "murder" is preferrable?

Also, the argument that "Saddam did it too, and a lot more and a lot worse of it" (true a statement though it may be) is a sort of moral equivalency argument and a nicely tarted up fallacy of irrelevancy. Parents would immediately recognize the fallacy if their kid, caught shoplifting a candy bar, sought to defended his actions by pointing out that some other kid on the block was shoplifting whole cases of beer.

Call me a child, then.

This is the most ridiculous round of navel-gazing we've engaged in since September 11, and that includes the hoo-hah over the ANSWER protests.

That we think this is torture is as sure an indication as exists that we've forgotten the meaning of the word; that we're so far removed from the real thing that we believe any inflicted discomfort is tantamount to torture; that we've forgotten what happened four years ago so well that we've allowed ourselves the luxury of growing stupid and panicky.

That we're now driven to the ramparts to decry something -- we don't know what, but assuredly, it must be pretty bad, because there's no way this is as bad as it gets -- is a sign that, first, we have way too much time on our hands, second, we've been watching too much X-Files, and third, we have lost perspective on the situation altogether.

There is a Uniform Code of Military Justice. It is no more or less perfect than any other Code promulgated by a group of humans, though I suspect it is objectively slightly better than most. Tasked with administering that Code are young officers all the way to star-/flag rank. They will screw up at times. The judges -- of whom I've known a few -- will miss a spot. It happens.

But to assert:

The substance is, distressingly enough, there. Specifically, the Senator cites some appalling abuse as witnessed by an FBI agent. While it is fashionable in certain crowds to shrug at these things on the grounds that the victims are all terrorists anyway, the affected apathy leaves some assumptions unexamined. Those assumptions are: first, that the abuse as reported was as bad as it got; second, that the victims are all terrorists. Both assumptions are false.

..

Now, two caveats here: no one, to my knowledge, has died at Camp X-Ray; and the specific techniques witnessed by Durbin's FBI source were, I am fairly sure, accepted US military interrogation tactics as long as twenty years ago. These are mitigating facts if you fixate on rhetoric in a vacuum, studiously ignore the constellation of American prisons other than Guantanamo, and pretend that rap music, shackles and uncomfortable air temperature is the extent of the problem. Knowing that on the next news cycle Durbin will be yesterday's news and our wartime prisons will remain a current affair, what would an adult do?

(Omissions made: Expansion on "false" theme through link to prisoner death and releases from Gitmo.) Brooding to the side, this is ridiculous, and irresponsible. Oh, there are worse abuses. We know it because there have been abuses before. And there probably are now. So we know it. And this is pretty bad, and can only suggest that it gets worse from here. And we know that prisoners have died in custody, and knowing -- as we just showed -- that there are abuses, and atrocity level ones (why stop there?), we also know that there have Never Been Proper Investigations, and the military is either covering the whole thing up, or the JAG Corps is either complicit in a host of show trials, or is so completely incompetent as to be unable to police its own.

Great stuff for A Few Good Men II. Lousy in practice.

The simple fact of the matter is that some men get roughed up in military prisons, as they do in other prisons. When they die, there is an investigation, and, as appropriate, a trial. As with all criminal justice systems, there will be mistakes, stupid blunders, and willful bad deeds. A belief otherwise is great if you expect the Eschaton around the corner, but utterly ridiculous if you've ever been intimately involved in the criminal justice system. (Did you know that they put shock belts on large, violent prisoners to keep them from attacking court personnel and sometimes even use it?!) But to make the perfect not merely the enemy of the good, but rather -- bonus! -- the enemy of a proper focus on the situation is frankly a waste of bandwidth, time, and resources.

Oh, I know, the terrorists will have only won when we're as bad as they are, et cetera.

Actually, they will have won when either large American cities glow from a newly inherent quality of the construction, or when we all face east-southeast to pray five times daily. Speaking purely for myself, when I face East to pray, I'd really rather it be because I was on a transcontinental flight to Vatican City to worship Christ at St. Peter's, thanks.

Oh, I know, we're Americans, and we should do better. Well, we should be like Christ, but here in the mortal realms, we also recognize that sometimes unfortunate things happen when trying to do good things. This means that we spend reasonable resources on stopping the bad things, but not to the detriment of doing the good things. We don't send individual soldiers in to rocket buildings one at a time, we drop bombs with the greatest precision possible given our technology. We don't settle each suspect jihadi into luxury apartments -- according them better stays than we give other non-signatories to the Geneva Convention -- we throw them into actually rather clean and safe prisons, and punish those responsible for doing them ill. Until we get the Phantom Zone up and operational, I think we're stuck with this vale of tears.

This entire round of self-absorbed blather over torture, extraordinary rendition, and making nasty faces at combatants who couldn't be bothered to observe the rules of war is rather like being inconsolably upset that during World War II's mass bombing runs, some of the bombs went off course and hit innocent people. Assuredly, that is a bad thing. Assuredly we should try to correct that -- and blessedly, we did. Assuredly, it was neither the collective intent to do those things, nor should the fact that those bombs missed their targets have stopped us from doing precisely what we did anyway -- keep bombing and keep fighting until we won.

Unless you have a standing division of angels (I'll settle for Thrones, though I'd prefer Seraphim) to oversee our prisons, we will have stuff like this happen. It is only a problem when we do not clean up the mess -- and frankly, since we know about all this from FBI emails, internal memoranda, and, wait for it, Pentagon investigations, you're really going to have to pardon me if I don't flap my wings and run around in circles.

And Nick's right: This is deja Nam all over again. Oh, I know: Well Meaning People Don't Want Us to Lose, They Just Want Us to Be On the Side of Angels. The consequent erosion in public support is An Unfortunate Side Effect, But Not in Any Way Their Fault. And of course, when terrible things happen to us and to other people, It Will Be A Sign That We Were In The Wrong From the Start, and We Shouldn't Ever Do Anything Like This Ever Again.

By the way: An adult would put this in perspective; take a quick check to make sure that the system is policing its own; if not, fix it; if yes, move on.

Do we have enough belly button lint yet, or do we need to keep digging?

How many people of the 10k detainees have died?  What percentage is that?

If your argument is that talk on this topic is completely without merit and self-indulgent, then as non-US citizen I would strongly disagree with you. As an outsider looking in there seems to be almost nothing more important to the image of your country than addressing these issues seriously, as your policies towards detainees seem to undermine the unquestionably admirable principles which the world once saw as fundamentally American.

Anyway which is the worse risk: that discussion on this topic is  'navel gazing' and as such unnecessary, or the possibility the treatment of detainees by your country is seriously contributing to growth of anti-american sentiment?

Obviously other factors have contributed to this loss of esteem as well, but to me and many others by far the clearest example of the corruption of your values are the new policies towards detainees such as 'enemy combatants', 'extraordinary rendition' and 'detention without trial'.

Those policies have led to a real collapse in confidence in America as a positive influence in the world among most of the people I know. These are people who once saw America as the strongest exponent of the principles of the rule of law (and innocence until proven guilty especially) in the world.

And Ireland is not a place which tends towards kneejerk anti-americanism, this is a country that greeted Reagan with parades and where many people still have portraits of JFK in their living rooms.

The economy here is strongly tied to yours and your culture has a pervasive influence. So though I doubt public opinion in Ireland is of any consequence in the US, my point is that if your reputation is suffering here I would seriously worry about the rest of the world.

Indeed one of the few positive developments that might help restore that confidence is seeing this debate finally starting properly in the US, disappointing though it is that it has taken almost four years for it to gain any real steam.

Stifling the debate with comments like 'navel-gazing' is the worst thing you could do in my opinion.

But to take the three points you raise in order:

1 - why have "they" never heard of Pol Pot or the Gulag? And you omitted the Nazi reference - have "they" heard of that? What are "they" taught and who teaches them and why?

2 - "Bully or useful tool"? Is there a 3rd or 4th option? Can these views be changed? Should they?

3 - "standard practice" in those prisons. And isn't the whole controversy here the issue that it is NOT standard practice in US prisons, or that we have an elaborate self-correcting mechanism in place (regularly scheduled elections, rule of law, free speech, military justice, tradition of mercy, etc.....) to remedy and eliminate such practices as needed?

Finally, you state, "We should all be condemning any use of torture by American Citizens. On Principle." And why should we limit the condemnation to Americans?

Sorry for being so socratic, but I don't think the problem is correcting American practices - we've got enormous experience doing just that. I think the problem is correcting practices which led to 9/11.

5 years ago I couldn't have told you where or what a Waziristan was, and today major public figures routinely mention it in political, military and diplomatic contexts. Do you any Waziris know what a Wisconsin is? Should they?

Ooops - Socrates again.

Cheers!

So the trick to once again winning the fickle love of the world is to beat ourselves up over bad things that may or may not be happening that we would have considered a freaking joke during the last globe-spanning conflict in which we found ourselves, to no effect but so that we can once again return to those lazy, hazy Nineties where we talked a good game but did so little?

Right.

It is the nature of the international system for the hegemon to be hated. We are the hegemon. Nothing we could do short of surrendering to France would make us loved (and that would rightly hack off a lot of Africans), and nothing short of committing societal suicide like Europe would make us accepted.

So, no thanks.

Gotta confess, though, your title is hilarious -- ironic in at least a couple senses of the word.

I was worried when you said that the executions and torture by the terrorists were "expressions of frustration, anger and ignorance", and I wondered if you had fallen under the spell of the soft bigotry of low expectations.  I read further and was gratified to see you call the terrorists "savage thugs". At least we have some common ground there.  

In a previous comment you say, "If they are the jihadist terrorists directly responsible for the atrocities of 9/11 the best thing you could do would be to try them". I believe we have done that, and will continue to do so as we uncover more about Al Qaeda. I am against trials for any of the peon POW's.  The ACLU, ABA et cetera will  start a "backdoor draft" to get enough law talkin' guys for their new clients, and the media circus would be an insane propaganda bonanza (is that a band?)for those who wish us harm. Watch as the little "freedom fighter" from Dhertpour, Iraq is being crushed under the oppressive heel of the cruel, racist Americans!

From what I understand, most, if not all the Gitmo detainees were captured in combat with our troops.  I have no problem holding these people, or anyone else captured in combat, for the duration of the war as POW's. If and when allegations of abuse or worse are made against our troops, I am confident that we will not ignore or hide them. As an American looking outward, I think my beliefs in this area are roughly in line with the American majority on this matter.

This is not to say that I am not concerned with the treatment of the POW's, but when I see the bar being constantly raised for our troops' behavior, while the bar for the enemy is buried deeper in the sand, I start to wonder about the agendas of those who feign such great concern for the plight of enemy captives.

As a group, Americans probably know what is really going on regarding the war more than anyone else in the world because we have friends and family who are there to witness and report the truth  to us without the media filters that blinker those of you in nations less involved. I am not trying belittle detainee abuse, but I can tell when it is being excessively magnified, and that is why I am giving the benefit of the doubt to those who are held to a standard over those who are not.

   

Just Me responds to this:

Durbin was not talking about "the troops" and you know it.  He was criticizing a POLICY of mistreating prisoners.

with this:

Sorry, but Bush and Rumsfeld aren't down in Gitmo or at Abu Graib doing that stuff.

Right, and Hitler never set foot in Auschwitz, or (more on point) the Gestapo's interrogation cells.  Innocent!

Have y'all ever stopped to think that such lousy arguments might be due to the fact that Trevino's right and you're not?

... but I'm sure that many readers appreciate your kind comments, ValMurph.  At least, I dearly hope so.  

As an outsider looking in there seems to be almost nothing more important to the image of your country than addressing these issues seriously, as your policies towards detainees seem to undermine the unquestionably admirable principles which the world once saw as fundamentally American.

Unfortunately, chauvinism seems to be outrunning pride here at RedState.  All the more reason to be grateful for Republicans like Trevino and Cole.  It makes me sadder than I can express to think how the words "once saw" in your comment are perfectly justified.

just not exhonorating troops that knowingly engage in unlawful acts.

IE the defense of Durbin is "Durbin wasn't comparing our troops to Nazi's, he was condeming the administration."  But if our troops are the ones doing the "torturing" at orders from Bush, Rumsfeld et al, that is no excuse/defense for them.  "just following orders" was proven at Nuremburg to be inadequat as a defense for torture/war crimes.

So essentially my argument is Hitler was responsible, but the guys following his orders were also responsible, because they followed unlawful orders and committed unlawful acts.

If Durbin thinks Bush's policies are illegal and unlawful, and he is ordering troops to committ illegal and unlawful things, he is still condemning the troops, because "following orders" is not a defense for unlawful acts/war crimes.

Essentially, Durbins attempt to slam the administration was also a reflection on our troops, not just the administration.

Brackets denote comments by blooch  

[[I was worried when you said that the executions and torture by the terrorists were "expressions of frustration, anger and ignorance", and I wondered if you had fallen under the spell of the soft bigotry of low expectations.  I read further and was gratified to see you call the terrorists "savage thugs". At least we have some common ground there.]]

Yes well when I was talking about (what I think are) the motivations for torture I wasnt necessarily only referring to the murderous brand carried out by the insurgents.

[[In a previous comment you say, "If they are the jihadist terrorists directly responsible for the atrocities of 9/11 the best thing you could do would be to try them". I believe we have done that, and will continue to do so as we uncover more about Al Qaeda. I am against trials for any of the peon POW's.  The ACLU, ABA et cetera will  start a "backdoor draft" to get enough law talkin' guys for their new clients, and the media circus would be an insane propaganda bonanza (is that a band?)for those who wish us harm. Watch as the little "freedom fighter" from Dhertpour, Iraq is being crushed under the oppressive heel of the cruel, racist Americans!]]

Is it inconceivable that such a person might be a detained in Guantanamo? that even one of the prisoners was merely a soldier who thought he was defending his nation from invaders and did not know or understand the larger issues involved?.

I would have thought that simply because someone once fought against America (or the Northern Alliance for that matter)at one point in time does not mean they should be locked up indefnitely. However I guess you might disagree.

Also you seem to discount the idea that some of these guys might be innocent of any wrongdoing. I know that in America you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. That principle has a proud history in your country and it scares me that some seem so quick to discard it.

[[From what I understand, most, if not all the Gitmo detainees were captured in combat with our troops.  I have no problem holding these people, or anyone else captured in combat, for the duration of the war as POW's.]]

That would be an improvement over their current status and I would welcome it very much. Unfortunately however at present they are 'enemy combatants' and have severely limited rights.

POW status would not be perfect though, as this is a war on a concept that conceivably might never end. Holding them without trial forever seems very unjust to me. If they are guilty of crimes then try them and if warranted sentence them to life imprisonment or death, but holding them without charge indefinitely is wrong when the nature of their infraction is vague and unproven.

And in fact it is unclear how most of the detainees were arrested, so its inaccurate to state that they were all captured in combat. There is evidence that detainees were arrested based on shaky intelligence from various factions of the Northern Alliance.

[[If and when allegations of abuse or worse are made against our troops, I am confident that we will not ignore or hide them. As an American looking outward, I think my beliefs in this area are roughly in line with the American majority on this matter.]]

[[This is not to say that I am not concerned with the treatment of the POW's, but when I see the bar being constantly raised for our troops' behavior, while the bar for the enemy is buried deeper in the sand, I start to wonder about the agendas of those who feign such great concern for the plight of enemy captives.]]

I'm afraid I cannot see how the bar for your troops is being raised - the Geneva protocols have been in use for decades and they have been abandoned by this administration as regards these detainees so if anything they have been lowered.

However I really do not see the main problem in all of this as one with the behaviour of individual soldiers. It is the policies dictated by your civilan leadership - especially in Guantanamo- which is tarnishing the image of your country, in my opinion.

And once again - the crimes of the insurgents are heinous - there is not and should not be any debate on that, and that is why perhaps you do not see as much discussion about it. Of course those responsible should be captured and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. And if capturing them is not possible your army should take them out completely. I dont think anyone believes that your government are hesistant or that they lack support in doing so, so discussing it seems pointless to me.

[[As a group, Americans probably know what is really going on regarding the war more than anyone else in the world because we have friends and family who are there to witness and report the truth  to us without the media filters that blinker those of you in nations less involved. I am not trying belittle detainee abuse, but I can tell when it is being excessively magnified, and that is why I am giving the benefit of the doubt to those who are held to a standard over those who are not.]]

I hope you are right, though I'm afraid I dont believe it. I do not believe I am blinkered, unless you can tell me that I am incorrect in saying these individuals are not afforded the same rights as you would expect for an american citizen.

Basically I just dont see how it serves anyone for your country to abandon fundamental principles such as the right to due process.

Thank you for engaging me on this though, you and the other posters on this board seem refreshinglby open to the debate.

I know that in America you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. That principle has a proud history in your country and it scares me that some seem so quick to discard it.

Just so you know, we have this principle here, but those charged with serious crimes are held until they are either aquitted or found guilty.  So just consider this to be pretrial detention (also for the record, those awaiting trial actually have fewer freedoms than those who are convicted in the majority of jails-for instance an inmate awaiting trial can't apply to be a trustee, and have less opportunity to leave their cell unit).

Also, the US is having tribunals on the Gitmo guys, although I am not sure how quickly these hearings occur, but at this point the detainees do have some due proccess rights, and in fact some detainees have been freed (and some have been recaptured or killed on the battlefield after their release).

It is the policies dictated by your civilan leadership - especially in Guantanamo- which is tarnishing the image of your country, in my opinion.

What policies are these, please provide a link to them?

I do not believe I am blinkered, unless you can tell me that I am incorrect in saying these individuals are not afforded the same rights as you would expect for an american citizen.

So just what rights are you talking about here?  

Comments like those are background noise. Granted, I'm only three decades old; but we've never been loved. Europe liked us more when we were more like them; that's as close as it got.

My broader point was:  let us not use 'what will they do with Durbin's remarks' as an excuse to go after durbin.

To answer your questions:

1. 
   
   'They' have not heard of Pol Pot for the same reason I bet an overwhelming majority of Americans have never heard of Pol Pot before Durbin mentioned him.

   As for teaching about Nazis - this is an interesting schism between East and West.  Nazi Germany is a big deal in the West.  Justifiably so, because the West lost a huge proportion of its youth in that war.  Despite the involvement of Japan, the bulk of the dead were from the west - whether German or English and American.  In other words, WW II was largely a White Man's war.  And all the horrible things Hitler did were focused on Europe.  Hitler's ambition may have included the Middle East and Asia, but he did not get to carry that out.

   For that reason, hitler is just not a big deal in the Middle East and Asia. To understand Hitler from a Middle East / Asia perspective, think of Idi Amin or the Hutus and Tutsis from a Western perspective. So, Nazi Germany does not find its way into the History books in the Middle East and Asia in any meaningful form.  They are more focused on European Colonialism and the huge exploitation of large parts of the world to feed the Industrial Revolution in Europe and later in the US. Because that had more impact on their societies than Nazi Germany.




2. US is either a Bully or a Useful Tool.  Yes, there are third and fourth and fifth options.

   Unfortunately we have precluded all of them by our own actions.  

   • Whether it is our insistence on a nuclear free zone in ME / Asia while turning a blind eye to Israel and China;
   •  Whether it is our portrayal of Middle Easterners as caricatures in our movies.
   • Whether it is our rank hypocrisy in shaking hands with Saddam Hussein while he lobbed chemical weapons at Iran;
   •  Whether it is our mollycoddling of despots in Saudi Arabia because they were our despots;
   • Whether it is the fact that 13 years after we 'liberated' Kuwait, women still did not have the right to vote in that kingdom;
   • Whether it is our consistent veto of every UN resolution condemning Israel while using UN resolution as the excuse to overthrow Saddam Hussein... and at the same time not saying 'boo' to the line of dictators who have ruled Pakistan -

   
   

   
   
   who knows?

   Can these views be changed?  You tell me.

3. 
   
   Oh, yes, we have the rule of law, people are punished, yada, yada.  So tell me, who has been punished for Abu Ghraib?  Are you suggesting that Col Ricardo Sanchez was completely unaware of what was going on at Abu Ghraib?  Really? Or RUmsfeld? Or even GWB or Cheney?

   How can we 'eliminate' a practice we will not even admit exists?
   

Waziristan?  LOL.  Many Americans cannot even say who their Vice President is - if you don't believe me, just listen to Hannity and his man on the street interviews.  I boldly predict that 90% of the people at this site could not find Waziristan on a map. Some may not even find Wisconsin on a map.

We have enough fixing of our own to do before we worry whether it is important that a Tuareg be able to find Wisconsin on a map.  

Sorry.

PS - Wisconsinites love Touaregs, especially if they bring the new diesel model over here.

... in that they aren't American citizens.  And quite simply that means that they aren't affored the protections of the Constitution.

That said, incidents of torture are unacceptable and need to be investigated and proscecuted vigorously.