Get this opening paragraph:
The parade of indictments of torture and other abuses at the Pentagon's overseas prison camps continues to march relentlessly before us. And if our collective outrage over these abuses has faded and dimmed over the months, so has the notion that the men and women responsible for these affronts should be held to account for their failures. In fact, this lack of accountability is almost as appalling as the abuses themselves.
Hmmm....where do I start? Parade of 'indictments'? Are we talking definition #1 of indictments--"a written statement charging a party with the commission of a crime or other offense, drawn up by a prosecuting attorney and found and presented by a grand jury" or definition #2 "an accusation of wrongdoing"?
If definition #1 applies, then having the 'men and women responsible for these affronts' indicted would certainly mean that they have been held accountable for their 'failures'. ('Affronts' and 'failures'? Isn't this kind of "sissy talk" if we are referring to torture and abuse?)
If definition #2 applies, then we are talking about ACCUSATIONS. And shouldn't journalists also be ACCOUNTABLE for investigating the source of the accusations to determine whether they are credible? Especially when getting it wrong has serious consequences(just ask Newsweek)!
It goes on...
Likening Guantanamo to the infamous string of forced labor camps that existed for many years in the Soviet Union was extremely far-fetched. Hyperbole of the first order, in fact. It's apparent that some detainees' stories have been exaggerations because it is, sadly, in the interests of some to have U.S. conduct portrayed in the worst possible light. (But NOT the Journal Sentinel, of course! --comment mine)
Still, the real light has been bad enough. Given the number of verified incidents of abuse, some accountability beyond the lower rungs should have been brought to bear.
Okay, so, first of all, how have these verified incidents of abuse been uncovered? After all, this is the American Gulag, where torture is rampant, prisoners are worked to death in labor camps and countless people are disappearing (definition of gulag)--with the complicity of our highest government officials. What deft reporter uncovered this scandal, in a world-altering scoop? Is there a new 'Deep Throat'? No....what do you know--the intrepid press has discovered these abuses documented in Defense Department documents!
So, let me get this straight, because right now my head is spinning a little bit. Our government is documenting instances of abuse in publicly available documents, making them available to the press and then prosecuting those responsible. But we have a "lack of accountability which is almost as appalling as the abuses themselves"? Isn't documenting the alleged abuse, investigating it and prosecuting those involved considered assigning accountability? If not, what is, exactly?
And since when is a lack of accountability as appalling as abuse itself? Is not being held accountable the same as being tortured? Hmmm, I know if I were given the choice, which option I'd go for....
The J/S goes on to quote the highly unbiased (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) Physicians for Human Rights, who issued a 135-page report on systematic torture practiced by the US since 2002 in Cuba, Afghanistan and Iraq. Let's see, the President and VP of this organization, Dr. Holly Atkinson and Dr. Frank Davidoff are contributors to the following: DNC, John Kerry, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton. I don't think they have any bias whatsoever. (BTW, if you want to read more about their position on the war in Iraq, check this out. I would like to comment on this article, but I think they deserve a blog of their own.)
An interesting choice of a group to quote. Of course, these people also stated in an article from 2002 on their website:
The US and allies must prepare for and develop a plan to prevent or stop reprisals by Saddam Hussein against Iraqi citizens in the midst of a conflict. This should include prevention of and preparedness for the burning of Iraqi oil fields and other elements of a scorched earth policy, as well as a chemical or biological attack against Iraqi citizens, in addition to those in neighboring countries.
Chemical or biological attack? With what? Hmmm, they were wrong about WMD, could they be wrong about torture?
Sorry, couldn't restrain myself.
Back to the J/S editorial....
Psychological mistreatment may seem pale by the side of the sexual sadism that was depicted in the photographs that emerged from the now-infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. But the techniques of psychological torture, the doctors warned, "can be just as harmful and are often more long-lasting than physical torture."
Hmmm. Can it be as long-lasting as, say, having your head cut off? Having your body set on fire and dragged through the streets behind a car? Being blown to smithereens by a suicide bomber?
The next source quoted is the NYTimes May 20th article about the deaths of two Afghan suspects at the U.S. military prison in Bagram. (How come these guys never quote The Weekly Standard, or The National Review?)
"Like a narrative counterpart to the digital images from Abu Ghraib, the Bagram file depicts young, poorly trained soldiers in repeated incidents of abuse. The harsh treatment, which has resulted in criminal charges against seven soldiers, went well beyond the two deaths," The Times noted.
So, now I'm wondering. Gulag, torture, prisoner abuse. Wow. This must really be out of control. So, if torture and abuse is rampant, there must be a lot of casualties associated with our military prisons. How many incidents of abuse have been documented? How many have led to prisoner deaths? Well, according to Time magazine's May 31st article, "What's Going on at Gitmo?":
HAVE ANY DIED THERE? Although the U.S. military has recently acknowledged that more than 30 detainees died in custody in Iraq and Afghanistan from August 2002 to November 2004, there have been no reports or allegations of detainee deaths at Guantanamo. (emphasis mine) According to the Pentagon, prisoners there have attempted suicide 34 times and have committed several hundred acts classified by the military as "self-injurious manipulative behavior," but none have died as a result. A Saudi man who tried to hang himself in 2003 ended up in a coma for several months but ultimately regained consciousness and learned to walk again.
Now, I'm not advocating mistreatment of prisoners, but NO ONE has died at Guantanamo. And in two years of conflict, there have been thirty (30) deaths? Thirty? Don't you think if there was widespread, malicious intentional torture of prisoners, sanctioned by military leadership, there would be more than 30 deaths?
A July, 2004 USA Today article stated that there had been 94 total alleged cases of abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ninety-four. Okay, no deaths at Gitmo, 30 deaths in two years, 94 alleged cases of abuse.
But here's the number you'll never see in the J/S...this is out of 50,000 prisoners. The 50,000 prisoners number was taken from the Army inspector general's office report and is from July 2004. So, presumably, there have been more prisoners since then. And still no deaths at Gitmo. The report goes on to state that almost half of those cases of alleged abuse had occurred where the terrorists were taken prisoner (presumably in the heat of battle) and not in the prison system itself.
Now, I don't know about you, but I have never found myself in a combat situation. But I can well imagine that if I had been shot at, or watched my buddy blown up by a suicide bomber, and I had the opportunity to capture one of these guys, I would make doggone sure that he was not in a position to do me any bodily harm. And I think I would be a lot more worried about putting him out of commission than being held 'accountable' by some liberal human rights-watch group for prisoner 'abuse'.
And the total number of allegations (allegations--not indictments) of abuse related to interrogations? Interrogations. Which, if there was a mandate on torture from the top, is when you would expect most of the abuse to occur. Eight. Eight. Hmmm. Not a strong indictment for a widespread policy of abuse.
So, if anything, I think that our military has performed quite remarkably, given the circumstances.
And, if that weren't enough, even though there have been relatively few incidents, there have been investigations and criminal charges filed against the soldiers involved. So, aren't these people being held accountable for their 'failures' and 'affronts'? (J/S term, not mine)
But we haven't charged "officials at the highest levels of government, from the White House to the Defense Department, whose actions and failures placed the ill-trained soldiers where they were and created the environment that led to the abuses."
Okay. Charge them with what? Is the J/S seriously advocating that we prosecute the President of the United States for the actions of a SMALL minority of our thousands of troops deployed across the globe? Well, before you start to chuckle, you should realize that they are in good company.
Because, in fact, Amnesty International Executive Director William Schultz is advocating that foreign governments arrest U.S. officials for their complicity in torture. So, if the J/S and Amnesty International get their way, maybe France will capture President Bush on his next trip across the pond and hold him for a war crimes trial. Wouldn't that be great? (This is the one thing that might make me actually wish that John Kerry had been elected president).
Kenneth Anderson addresses this issue and more in a great article"An American Gulag? Human Rights Groups Test the Limits of Moral Equivalency".
He makes an interesting point...
If you really believe, as Amnesty does, that Guantanamo is a Stalinist gulag, then you ought really to believe that its authors are the genuine Stalinist article--criminal leaders of a world-class criminal regime. After all, it is Stalins, Berias, and their henchmen who produce Stalinist gulags. Likewise, if you are Human Rights Watch and you really believe in the moral equivalence of Sudan and the United States, then surely you ought to regard U.S. leaders as nothing more than wicked criminals, to be arrested, and their regime isolated and sanctioned, if not actually invaded. Surely you should be urging the virtuecrats of Brussels and all of Europe to break off trade relations with the United States. You should be arguing for a breakup of NATO to isolate the human rights abuser, and perhaps even urging Europe to create the military might necessary to confront the deep evil of the U.S. regime. That's what morally serious people should be doing, after all, in dealing with Sudan and its leaders. We should be contemplating all that and more against the regime in Sudan. And if you really believe in the moral equivalence you rhetorically trumpet, then that's what a principled organization would demand regarding the United States, too.
So, do the editors at the J/S really believe that officials at the top of our government are bloodthirsty war-criminals? Tromping on human rights and condoning torture and abuse of innocent prisoners? Blood dripping from their jowls? If so, then they should be calling for more than 'accountability'....they should be calling for the overthrow of our very government. If it is that serious, it is that serious....
The conclusion of their editorial...
Osama bin Laden's terror gang inflicted serious damage on our country, and the war in Iraq is killing and maiming our young men and women.
No, the terrorists (not the 'war in Iraq') are killing and maiming our armed forces. And killing and maiming Iraqi civilians. Who would all be dead, if we capitulated to the thinking of the J/S editorial board and turned tail and abandoned the Iraqi people. What's more, at least 12 of the former detainees who have been set free have resumed terrorist activities. So...if we have so much concern over the deaths of our young men and women, wouldn't we advocate keeping these guys locked up as long as possible? Or depriving them of a few hours sleep to learn whatever we could about how they might be planning to attack our people? Or is their freedom more important than human life? (I guess some human lives--those of terrorists and murderers--are more valuable than other human lives--our 'young men and women').
But another kind of damage occurs when we evade our moral and legal responsibilities and allow some of our country's deepest and most cherished values to be trivialized in waging the war on terror. In failing to call to account all those responsible for torture, we are inflicting that kind of damage on ourselves.
Well, I always thought that some of "our country's deepest and most cherished values" included love of country, respect for the truth, support of our troops, and the presumption of innocence. (Note the surprising absence of 'self-loathing' or anti-American sentiment, or even 'Bush-hating' as a cherished value). I would believe our men and women (young AND old) before I would believe the word of terrorists (who are apparently the sources of most of the allegations)--who are explicitly instructed by Al Qaeda to lie to rile up the Islamic world against the U.S.
But Al Qaeda should write a new chapter in their instruction manual--no need to ask their devotees to deliberately lie about their abuse at the hand of the Great Satan in order to whip up anti-American sentiment. Whipping up anti-American sentiment over the thinnest of allegations has become the core competency of the American media (including the Journal/Sentinel). Al Qaeda can sit back and focus on killing more Americans and Iraqis.
"Mission Accomplished".
1 comment:
Aloha im new to this, I came upon this board I have found It truly helpful & it's helped me out so much. I hope to give something back & aid others like its helped me.
Thanks a load, Catch You Later.
Post a Comment