Mudville Gazette

Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! « Open Post | Main | From the Front »

April 28, 2005

Torture Test

Greyhawk

(Greyhawk notes: this post, written during my tour in Iraq, was originally published here in January 2005. I'm re-posting it today to mark the one-year anniversary of CBS' broadcast of the various photos they had been handed via one of the defendents in the case, immediately after it was determined he would stand trial for his crimes. See also an even earlier post on the timeline of events surrounding the case. I suppose I should get around to updating that entry...)

Abu Ghraib is but a stone's throw from where I now type these words, and it's ugliness is more than skin deep. It's a very real place, and an undesirable home to criminals and those whose duty it is to guard them. But to many it's an abstract image, a debate point to be used against opponents like garlic to frighten vampires, a boogy man to frighten children. They inject that ward into any writing they do on certain topics in an attempt to frame the discussion around what is unquestionably now the immediate mind's eye association most people in the world make with the word "torture" - the horrendous photos from the notorious prison.

Here's an illustration from the Washington Post: Does the Right Remember Abu Ghraib? See, it's about Abu Ghraib people! Defend that! The title alone is an attempt to frame the debate on two points. 1) The issue is a right/left issue, and 2) The notorious digital images from Abu Ghraib are a result of government policy.

Both claims lack merit.

Let's dispense with the right/left aspect of this outright. Not everything can be pigeonholed into those political categories, and certainly no one on either end of the political spectrum feels torture is one of the defining points of their position. As much as some may take delight in setting up a "torture aficionado straw man" who supported that other guy in the last election" it's certainly not a legitimate starting point for any reasonable discussion on the matter. Unfortunately there are those who would have it that way in the US Senate, and whatever the outcome the nation will be the worse for it.

If you're looking for further discussion on that political topic move on. The remainder of this post is not for you. But you will miss a chance to look a little deeper into the ugly mirror that is Abu Ghraib, perhaps to clear a bit of fog from it's surface, and discover if you know all you think you do on that topic.

Take this simple 10 question quiz. The answers follow (no fair peeking). There are no trick questions, and no opinion questions. Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts. But perhaps not those you'll find on the editorial pages of your local paper.

Pencils ready? Here's the quiz:

1. The famous "60 Minutes" photos from Abu Ghraib were

a. Taken over a period of several months

b. All from one night

c. All from one week

-------------------

2. Who were the victims in those photos, and why were they singled out for abuse?

a. Iraqi cab drivers / mistakenly identified as terrorists

b. Suspected Al-Qaeda Terrorists / Intel officers acting under orders from the Pentagon had carefully instructed the guards at Abu Ghraib in the effectiveness of humiliation in getting terrorists to "sing", and actively encouraged it's use.

c. "Insurgents" / High Command needed info quickly to stem the rising tide of violence during Ramadan

d. Ordinary criminals in prison for their crimes, of no intelligence value/they were brought to the high security area for fighting among themselves at another area of the prison.

-------------------

3. Throughout Fall 2003 SSg Ivan Frederick, a guard at Abu Ghraib, was continuously emailing his concerns about conditions home to his family, but higher ups ignored them.

True or False
-------------------

4. The highest ranking of the accused torturers at Abu Ghraib were Reservists, not Active Duty. What were their civilian occupations?

a. Republican precinct Chairmen

b. WalMart Stockboys

c. Postal workers

d. Prison guards

-------------------

5. Lyndie England was an administrative worker at the prison. Why was she present for the torture session?

a. Not enough "real guards" due to poor planning

b. She was celebrating her Birthday with her boyfriend, and had violated orders to be there

c. The naked pyramid was scientifically proven more effective if a female was present

d. Direct orders of Donald Rumsfeld

-------------------

6. The Army suppressed the story of Abu Ghraib until the 60 Minutes broadcast.

True or False
-------------------

7. The Army investigation began

a. After 60 Minutes aired the photos when General Taguba was sent to find out what happened

b. Shortly after the event when a fellow guard learned of the photos and reported the abuse to higher ups at Abu Ghraib

c. When Frederick alerted his family to what he was being forced to do

d. When photos began showing up on weblogs operated by the guards

-------------------

8. How were the pictures made public?

a. Discovered after months-long investigations by reporter Seymour Hersh and 60 Minutes producer Mary Mapes

b. Handed to Hersh by Gary Myers, his old pal from the My-Lai court martial who was coincidentally representing SSG Ivan Frederick, the highest ranking individual charged with torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib, immediately after the preliminary hearing in which they were released to the defense

c. Handed to a representative of 60 Minutes by relatives of SSG Frederick

d. Discovered posted on weblogs operated by the guards

-------------------

9. General Taguba in Senate testimony blamed events on

a. Poorly supervised individuals acting on their own

b. Unnamed Pentagon bureaucrats

c. The military culture

d. Individuals carrying out what they believed to be legal orders

-------------------

10. SSG Frederick:

a. Was given a slap on the hand

b. Was found guilty by court martial despite the valiant efforts of his top-notch defense team to identify the "real criminals"

c. Pleaded guilty at start of court martial

---------------------------------------------------------

Answers

1: B. The photos were from November 8, 2003.

Those who thought otherwise are experiencing the "success" of Seymour Hersh's early efforts. In a theme later adopted and repeated worldwide, Seymour Hersh (and others) insisted frequently that there were thousands of photos available: "This is a generation that sends stuff on CDs, sends it around. some kid right now is negotiating with some European magazine. -- You know, I can't say that for sure, but it's there. -- It's out there. And the Army knows it." As of this writing no additional pictures have surfaced.

2. D. Criminals brought to the cell block for fighting. They were not being interrogated for information, in fact they were being tortured as punishment and for "fun". At England's hearing, a government lawyer read numerous statements from England's previous sworn statements into the record. The statements are of England admitting to stepping on prisoners' toes, taking photos, posing for photos and posing prisoners for photos, and saying she participated for fun, not due to orders. Additional testimony corroborated this admission.

Another Hershism: He tried desperately to depict the Abu Ghraib torture victims as innocents swept off the streets as a result of confessions gained in earlier torture sessions: "I'll tell you how they get there. You bust the guy that doesn't have anything to do. You humiliate him. You break him down. You interrogate him. He gives up the name of you want to know who is an insurgent, who is Al Qaeda? He gives up any name he knows."

3. False. Frederick began emailing his family about the situation at Abu Ghraib after he was arrested for his part in the torture. Those who thought otherwise may have been mislead by Seymour Hersh's original New Yorker piece on the event, in which Seymour told the story without using chronological order.

4. D. Although several early stories tried to paint them as untrained individuals thrust into a job they weren't prepared to do, Ivan Frederick (38 at the time) and Charles Graner (36 at the time) were prison guards.

Key quotes:

Frederick (original 60 Minutes story linked above): Frederick told us he will plead not guilty, claiming the way the Army was running the prison led to the abuse of prisoners.

"We had no support, no training whatsoever. And I kept asking my chain of command for certain things...like rules and regulations," says Frederick. "And it just wasn't happening."

...He's a corrections officer at a Virginia prison, whose warden described Frederick to us as "one of the best."

Graner (link above): But public records indicate that Graner had troubles at work as a correctional officer in the state prison system in Greene County -- a history of disciplinary actions that culminated in his firing in 2000. He was later reinstated by an arbitrator.

A reporter who served with Graner previously: He said he was shocked to hear that Graner has been accused of mistreating prisoners, in part because of the training they and other guards received years ago. "It was drilled into our minds well before we left the continental U.S. what we were allowed to do, and not allowed to do, relative to the treatment of prisoners."

More Hersh: "Let me just say this. I believe the services have a -- look, the kids did bad things. But the notion that it's all just these kids [doing these things]... The officers are "in loco parentis" with these children. We send our children to war. And we have officers like that general, whose job is to be mother and father to these kids, to keep them out of trouble. The idea of watching these pictures, it's not only a failure of the kids, it's a failure of everybody in the command structure."

5. B. England was celebrating her 21st birthday with her boyfriend, Graner. Numerous early media versions of the story would quote her family members questioning why she was being used as a guard when that wasn't her job. (At the time it was a "not enough soldiers to do the job" story) England was in fact violating orders by being in the cell block. Later she would claim that her superiors had instructed her to pose and told her exactly what to do. If that's true, it was Frederick or Graner giving the "orders", but she never named names, or, if she did, it didn't "make the papers".

Update/more:

But England refused to give him up. In March 2003, she went with Graner and another soldier to Virginia Beach. During the trip, Graner took pictures of himself having anal sex with England. He also photographed her placing her nipple in the ear of the other soldier, who was passed out in a hotel room. Soon, it became their new game: Whenever Graner asked her to, England would strike a pose.

"Everything they did, he took a picture of," says Hardy, her lawyer. "I asked Lynndie why she let him. She said, 'Guys like that. I just wanted to make him happy.' She was like a little plaything for him. The sexual stuff, the way he put her in those positions, that was his way of saying, 'Let's see what I can make you do.'"
<...>
During that time, Graner instigated another kind of amusement: sexually charged weekly theme parties in the barracks. "Naked Chem-Light Tuesday," he called it. A Chem-Light is a light stick used by soldiers that's akin to a flashlight, containing hydrogen peroxide and a fluorescent dye packaged in a small plastic tube. Break it open, and the stuff glows for hours. One night, Graner pulled his shorts down, poured the contents of a Chem-Light onto his penis, and walked around naked.
<...>
And pose for more pictures. In a supply room, Graner takes a shot of England performing oral sex. England adds a flourish for the photos: a thumbs-up sign. In another photo, England is standing near a detainee, Hayder Sabbar Abd, a 34-year-old taxi driver, as he is being made to simulate masturbation. Again, she gives a thumbs-up.
<...>
They'd found a dead goat and a dead cat somewhere and started slicing them up. Someone took a photo of a soldier pretending to have sex with the goat's head. "Then they cut off the cat's head and shoved it on the top of a soda bottle," England says.
For several weeks, the decaying animal heads provided entertainment for the soldiers. "Someone put sunglasses on them, and put the rifle next to the heads and took a picture. Some soldiers put a cigarette in the cat's mouth," she says. The soldiers stashed the severed heads in their rooms.

"It was funny," England says. "So funny."

6. False. The story first appeared in CNN in January, with a follow up in March, to include mentions of the photographic evidence. Without the sensational photos the story didn't get much attention.

7. B. The Army began investigating as soon as a fellow guard reported the photos he had seen.

8. C. The known correct answer is "C" - Members of Frederick's family handed the photos to a 60 Minutes representative. The NY Times offers this quote from his uncle: "The Army had the opportunity for this not to come out, not to be on 60 Minutes," he said. "But the Army decided to prosecute those six G.I.'s because they thought me and my family were a bunch of poor, dirt people who could not do anything about it. But unfortunately, that was not the case." Ironically that may better describe the motive of the 60 Minutes crew.

The relationship between Hersh and Frederick's lawyer was certainly just an amazing coincidence.

If you'd heard this quote from during the time of the 60 Minutes / "Rathergate" story you might have been misled on this question: Ms. Mapes is also responsible for CBS's reporting on the Abu Ghraib pictures, a story she helped break. According to TV reporter Gail Shister, "The scoop was the result of more than two months' legwork by 60 II producer Mary Mapes." In an interview with Charlie Rose, Mapes described how hard she worked to find the incriminating pictures:

"We ended up chasing it, chasing it halfway around the world and back again. Trying not just to chase the rumors of it, but---but to find out what the reality of it. And in the beginning, a lot of it was whispered accounts of pictures that existed somewhere, an investigation that was going somewhere against someone, and we were able luckily to narrow that down and get our hands on the pictures which really gave us our first real hard proof that this was real."

9. A. The key quote from Taguba's Senate testimony: "We did not find any evidence of a policy or a direct order given to these soldiers to conduct what they did. I believe that they did it on their own volition and I believe that they collaborated with several MI (military intelligence) interrogators at the lower level." Follow the link to see the media spin on this one. The headlines screamed "Taguba blames Leadership for Prison Abuse".

10. C. Frederick entered a guilty plea at the start of his court martial. No evidence was presented, the story was not recorded. His lawyer was at his side as he called for all those other guilty parties to follow his example. He didn't clarify who he meant. After he was sentenced to eight years his lawyer called the sentence "excessive" and said he intended to appeal.

What was your score?

A discussion of torture is an ugly necessity in the world today, but those who would enter that discourse with the battle cry of "Abu Ghraib" should at least understand their position. It's a house of cards, ugly cards to be sure, and not a foundation for discussion with any intent of serious resolution.

2005-01-07 12:47:17

Posted by Greyhawk at 09:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (83) |

Show Comments Here (83) |

Hide Comments

9 out of 10. I didn't get the "who handed them to who" right. I went for the fredrick's lawyer and hersch connection.

Posted by kat-Missouri at January 7, 2005 08:36 AM

Greyhawk, thanks for pulling all this information together in one place. I thought I knew a lot about this story, but still missed 2 (thought it occurred over several days, and had no idea how CBS got the pictures).

To read Hersch's quotes side-by-side with the truth is really startling. That man is truly despicable. And just is bad are those who are trying to blur issues/events, and tie legal interrogation techniques, torture, and court-martial offenses all into one neat little package--all for political purposes. The damage they will end up doing is really scary.

It all makes me sick to my stomach.

Posted by Beth at January 7, 2005 01:20 PM

Greyhawk - Any comments about Andrew Sullivan's latest allegations of widespread torture? He's talking about Abu Ghraib a lot lately. Seems if a prisoner (former prisoner?) makes an allegation to the Red Cross it's the gospel truth for him. Within a year he's gone from being a war supporter to Michael Moore, Jr. Curious.

Posted by Kurt at January 7, 2005 02:11 PM

But as Greyhawk notes, there have been dozens of other incidents that do not have photographs, and haven't gotten attention, such that many people, including Gonzalez at his hearings, attributed the entirety of the "torture" scandals to that one set of photos.

Do do a Rumsfeld.
The photos have created an expectation that they represent the entirety of the abuses. Did those guards commit abuses on other days? Almost certainly.
Are there credible reports of a wide variety of other abuses, both in Iraq and GTMO? Yes.
Are some of those the result of individuals who were punished (some adequately, some inadequately)? Yes.
Are other of the abuses apparently the result of official policy of DOD interrogators? Yes.

Posted by Mithras at January 7, 2005 02:13 PM

I think you've performed a valuable public service = I follow the news more than most people and was suspicious of Hersh but did not know a fraction of the true story. Who or what started the rumor that the International Red Cross was the culprit in releasing this material?

Posted by wayne at January 7, 2005 02:19 PM

10 out of 10. Snort. Too much time on the web.

Posted by ernesto at January 7, 2005 02:32 PM

I probably would only have got about 3 out of 10 right if I hadn't known where this was headed. Excellent summary!

Posted by Just Some Guy at January 7, 2005 02:39 PM

Excellent! You did a great service. Just wish this could get published around the country.

Posted by Lucille at January 7, 2005 02:51 PM

I'm not sure if this is the author's intent, but this "torture test" reaks of an attempt to minimize the problem of torture. It is largely irrelevant, for example, to focus on the manner in which the story was revealed to the general public. The *fact* is that torture occurred, period. Any attempt to minimalize the *fact* that torture occurred is like pointing out that some of the 9/11 victims were old and would have died soon anyways -- a true, but completely irrelevant, fact. Wrong is wrong.

It is also irrelevant that *most* of the the pictures we are familiar with took place on a single day -- because the *fact* is that torture has occurred on other days and at other places (like at GTMO).

Moreover, the practice of torture was approved -- as a matter of legality -- at the highest levels of government (the "torture memo").

These should be concerns to all Americans - right or left, red or blue.

But when I see blog posts like this (and comments like some of those above), I certainly can understand what might prompt the NY Times into at least asking "Does the Right Remember Abu Ghraib"?

Posted by Kman at January 7, 2005 03:06 PM

Kman - nice try, but you didn't fool me for a minute into thinking you read the post.

Posted by Greyhawk at January 7, 2005 03:23 PM

Abu Graibe is a pimple on a elephant's butt and an excuse to bash the administration. It is overblown and keeping on talking about it is putting our troops in danger. Of course, the America Haters never miss a chance to bring our mistakes to the attention of the world. It is like the Ohio Election. A lot to do about nothing! Get over it and let's get Iraq to an election. We hear more about the discomfort of some terroist than we do about the beheading of innocents in Iraq.

Posted by Ruck at January 7, 2005 03:39 PM

Any interrogation not involving something you would see on CSI or Law and Order is, in my opinion, something the worlds most moral and looked upon nation should not practice. If you want to call those other activities torture or not, it doesn't matter. I think they should be interrogated the same way American citizens are. I don't feel like we as a nation should stoop the the terrorists level.

I think Christ would agree.

Posted by Josh Kinniard at January 7, 2005 03:47 PM

How about the show 24, It constantly shows horrendous torture, but it doesn't effect the ratings any.

Posted by Mrs G at January 7, 2005 03:54 PM

I come from a different time, a different mindset. If I had been a supervisor or someone who directed methods of interogation, I would have fell back on proven methods.

I would have instructed the guards and interogatation personel to use:

1. Water torture, where you almost drown to prisoner, repeatly. Where you keep him under the water until he chokes and breaths water.

2. Binding the prisoner until the joints almost seperate, and leaving them like that for hours

3. Standing a prisoner on a stool, with a rope around his neck, so that he has to stand on his tip-toes to keep from strangling.

4. Withholding water and food, until the prisoner talks, or becomes unresponsive.

5. Forcing the prisoner to be imprisoned in a small box about three feet by three feet, until he talked or becomes unresponsive.

Of course, I would have instructed no pictures be taken of these methods.

Torture by giving the prisoner, what he has always wanted, but could not do because of his religion is not torture, because it gives him the excuse to do it and know that, it was not of his own free will, so Allah will give him a free ride to his virgins with no punishment.

If you don't believe me, visit some of the Arab, Middle Eastern Porno sites.

Oh...hell, I take it all back, I was just kidding, I have nothing else to do but peck on this keyboard. No..I was ordered to post this,,,,No, it was because I am drunk, No...Its because...yea,,well,,Its just not my fault, I was raised in a trailer park, my step mother, well..you see, you see..she used to make..you know...I didn't know any better..I...

G@d told me to do it..

This is my post

Papa Ray
West Texas
USA

Posted by Papa Ray at January 7, 2005 03:57 PM

>>>"Moreover, the practice of torture was approved -- as a matter of legality -- at the highest levels of government (the "torture memo")." <<<

This is the "big lie" the press keeps telling. The purported "torture memo" did nothing more than draw a line to explain what was torture and therefore forbidden and what was not torture and therefore allowed (though not directed nor encouraged). What the press has done is take some things close to the line but allowed and call them "tantamount to torture" or even just outright calling them "torture." I am sure that no matter where the line was drawn, Democrats, aided by their press minions, would say that the memo condoned torture by feining horror at what was allowed no matter what it was, such is the politics of personal destruction aimed at Rumsfeld coming from elements of the Democratic party today.

You have to draw a line somewhere -- which is something the critics always have refused to do (including Andrew Sullivan) because they know that they would sound ridiculous if they excluded everything they claim to be horrified about from the tactics allowed. But the question remains: "How can you make uncooperative prisoners cooperate?" Until that question is answered by critics of the memo, there is no debate. It's simply a game of power politics by the left -- a game that is ultimately costing American soldiers' and Iraqi lives daily.

Posted by Al Onbar at January 7, 2005 03:59 PM

Ummm, Josh -- is that why Christ chased and beat the money-changers out of the temple with a whip without a hearing or interrogation?

I think Christ would agree that stopping those who murder innocents by cutting their heads off while filming is the correct thing to do. Have you read the old testament and God's participation in His people's claiming of the promised land? Some very disturbing things are ordered by God himself to be carried out by the children of Israel. Don't try to sell that "But Christ abrogated all that" nonsense either. Jesus himself said he came not to change one iota of the law, but to fulfill it. And basic Christian doctrine holds that Christ and God are one & the same, the mind of the old testament God is no different than the mind of the new testament Christ. Both are revelations of His total personality.

But we are both being disingenuous and unfair in invoking Christ's name, because fact is neither you nor I KNOW what Christ would think, since as fallible human beings we cannot embrace the full complexity of the mind of God, and can only put God in little boxes where we can claim to know his heart. To rephrase and old saying, "To invoke Christ is the last refuge of someone without a better argument".

As a Christian, I beleieve torture is wrong, but coercive interrogation that is not torture is fair game given the high stakes. So, it depends on what your definition of "torture" is. I suppose we will need lawyers like Bill Clinton to figure that out for us.

Posted by Michael at January 7, 2005 04:12 PM

Someone force Ed Cone to take this quiz.

Posted by Jim Beam at January 7, 2005 04:46 PM

Regardless of what the people involved may say now, it's likely they were indeed humiliating these jihadists/Saddam loyalists to gather intelligence, and prevent future attacks.

This whole story is absurd. That the media are obsessed with America's enemies being photgraphed naked, while these same enemies chop off peoples heads, burn people alive, and intentionally target civilians, is the biggest outrage of all.

We are at war. The only problem with places such as Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, is they do not have even more prisoners.

Posted by Imperialist Crusader at January 7, 2005 04:46 PM

I echo the question somone posted above: any comment on the reports that Andrew S. is referring to? Are they credible? Has he simply decided to believe any prisoner's allegations? None of this would change the fact of reprehensible reporting by Hersh regarding Abu Ghraib; but what about the reports of rape, and hanging a guy by his hands and forcing him to curse Allah, which while perhaps not "torture" I would describe as monumentally stupid?

Posted by a guy at January 7, 2005 05:00 PM

I don't see what the big deal over this is. It might be a little unsavory that some guys get tortured, but they are fighting against us trying to take our freedom and our lives. If all they get is a naked pyramid or a little electrical stimulation for it, then they got off lucky. Like Michael said above, it wasn't even torture, it was just coercive interrogation and there is nothing wrong with interrogation.

Besides that, they told us the guys in the pictures aren't even the terrorists. THey are regular criminals. And, the military said it was only a couple of rogue guards on one day doing it (although I don't know who the dog handlers were or the other guards in the background were, or the civillians) so it can't be something systemic.

Some will argue that aside from the ones that anti-american lefty Hersh cited, there were hundreds more that congress viewed, pictures that showed many "brutal" acts. My digital camera can hold 748 good quality pictures. It still doesn't proove that there is a problem. There is too much at stake here in terms of public perception of what we are doing in Iraq for the military to take a chance and get caught in a coverup. They went to the source of the problem and smoked them out.

The lefies need to move into the new century and join reality. Thank you Greyhawk for trying to enlighten them to the facts. Without people like you, journalists would be running the world.

Posted by Old Glory at January 7, 2005 05:16 PM

Alternative title: 'The NYTimes Seymour Hersh is a F***ing liar'

Posted by DANEgerus, Portland, OR at January 7, 2005 05:34 PM

It is completely amazing that the only "facts" a Leftist agrees with are the ones pulled out of their asses that just happen to support their preconceived conclusions.

Posted by nobody important at January 7, 2005 05:43 PM

I have a 33 year old son. He is not a child; he is not a boy. He is a man and has been since he turned 21. Hirsh and Moore et. al. are trying to increase the emotion the story by infantilizing men older than my son. Dipsticks.

Posted by nobody important at January 7, 2005 05:48 PM

I am betting that the MSM and LLL would uncategorically label everything mentioned by Papa Ray above, "torture" or "tantamount" to torture. Yet, I am betting Papa Ray is familiar with SERE (Survival Escape Resistance and Evasion) school, because nearly everything mentioned (except the binding of joints thing) is something we do to our own pilots, aircrew, and others in positions with high risk of capture, AS TRAINING IN THE US MILITARY!

I would hardly claim that the U.S. Military routinely practices torture on our own soldiers and sailors. Continually calling what happened at Abu Ghraib "torture" simply diminishes the ACTUAL practice of real torture perpetrated by such illustrious folks as the North Koreans, Chinese, North Vietnamese, Soviets and, now, the Islamic terrorists.

Why are so many Americans so full of self loathing? It is completely incomprehensible to me. To express their own hatred of themselves and their country, they diminish the treatment suffered by our own people who have become captives over the past 55 years and suffered true torture. Were it only so that they had been only subject to the naked pyramid, the unconnected wires on a box, panties on the head and barking dogs. Ask them about it and I'll bet they will laugh in your face if you equate the above treatment to the real torture they underwent as prisoners.

Posted by Fatal at January 7, 2005 05:54 PM

I knew most of the info, because I took the time to find it on conservative news sources and blogs. As expected, MSM gave us none of it. Thank you for pulling it all together in one spot. Thank you, also, for your service to our country. Take care of yourself. Come home safe and soon.

Posted by Bachbone at January 7, 2005 05:56 PM

Torture. We all do it. I was a part of the Gurkha Rifles in India and took part in the terrorist flushing operations in the Eastern and Northern part of India. There was always this "understanding" with our superiors that use any means to extract info from the deemed terrorists. We had been caught a couple of times by nosey jounalists but after receiving a slap on the wrist it was back to business.

Why is there such an outcry in case of Abu Ghraib? Worse has been done and will be done to the deemed terrorists around the world. Why is it such a big issue in America? The only thing that comes to mind is that the American administration has slowly evolved the reason for the Iraq war from search-for-WMDs to morally-right-thing-to-do. And this moral bandwagon has no space for Abu Ghraib. Does anyone else agree with this?

Posted by A.Sharma at January 7, 2005 06:10 PM

Torture at Abu "Grab". As we know, in New York City they would pay good money for the treatment at Abu Ghraib in their fancy clubs. Being led around on a leash in the nude by a cute chick is worth a lot of money there. They are some of the same people who complain now about torture. Well, some of the wealthier ones have "torture chambers" in their homes.

Posted by Harry at January 7, 2005 06:11 PM

8 out of 10, not too bad. Has anyone out there ever been publicly "humiliated?" I sure have and I live to tell the story...
Those people that were "tortured" with panties on their heads, dogs, and naked pile ups still have their heads on their shoulders. WTF is this all about anyway?
My best advice to the men that were "tortured" in Iraq is to vote. Vote for the party that will be able to take control of your country and we will leave. We will hold parades for our brave men and women that fought to make Iraq free, we will honor our dead. You need not worry about another panty on the head....

Posted by babs at January 7, 2005 06:14 PM

Your quiz would mean something if the Abu Ghraib photos described the extent of what was going on. But they don't, of course. You selectively focus on the photos taken in one night, which distorts the record as documented by the Army report. The problems extended far beyond one night, or even these individual soldiers. Even the Army admits this--it was the bringing of the "Gitmo" system with Gen. Miller which really triggered the problems that existed. You can deny reality all you want, but this doesn't advance the cause of the United States one bit.

Plus you are inaccurate--at least one of the Abu Ghraib photos was of a detainee who died during interrogation by Special Forces personnel and was packed in ice and left in the shower.

Finally, you don't focus on what is important--when these things happen, it makes winning Iraq harder. I doubt not that the Iraqis knew about this long before the rest of us did. And it didn't help our position.

Note that there are two groups of us who originally opposed the war. One says get out now. This is unrealistic in the minds of the majority of us. What we want is to win. And it is the Administration's responsibility to win--no one else's. If we continue to just hang on in Iraq and try nothing else different or new, we are doomed to lose. We must change our approach or we will be defeated.

Posted by Rob W at January 7, 2005 06:28 PM

I talked to someone just yesterday who'd been through SERE training (or some version of it) while at the Air Force Academy. Afterward he bought a second gun and vowed that the last bullet was his, because he wasn't ever going to be captured.

That we do it to certain (most definately not all!) of our military doesn't make it okay to do to others. I don't think that anyone is arguing that what happened at Abu Ghraib is okay. Some people might argue that it wasn't torture. Other's might argue that it was, but it wasn't interrogation and so is not relevant to a discussion on interrogation.

I'm not sure that I should point out that about 14 years ago when I enlisted in the Air Force (can I hope that this is no longer true?) they weren't allowed to use *pushups* as punishment? No "drop and give me 50." And not 40 and not 20... not even 10? Because any physical punishment that couldn't be justified as training (I understood that the Army *could* give push ups). I can't believe that this is something that the Air Force came up with or wanted. So who the *heck* decided that *push-ups* were unacceptable physical punishment?

And we expect anyone to define *torture* rationally?

Posted by Julie at January 7, 2005 06:30 PM

Julie,

I am betting that the reason that your friend said the "last bullet" would be for him is the same as why many others held the same sympathies after SERE school (not me, suicide just isn't in the cards for me). It isn't because of what we were subject to at SERE school, it is because the things we went through, although very unpleasant, could not even realistically simulate the REAL torture we could expect if captured.

What went on at Abu Ghraib and GITMO simply was not real torture. The MSM and LLL continue to re-define words, by applying them to less and less egregious situations, until they lose all sense of what their true meanings once were. "Torture" is just the latest re-definition. As an even more species example, I give you the word "Hate", which has now evolved to include mere disagreement with another's religion, sexual orientation, political outlook, etc. In other words, we are very close to re-defining "hate" to be a mere differentiation from the accepted "norm". When that happens, the only "free" speech will be that which the PC police say is acceptable.

Posted by Fatal at January 7, 2005 06:54 PM

My score was 8 - 1/2. I gave myself a 1/2 on answering "c" to question 1. As a former Army JAGC officer, I know that the Army does not put up with misconduct.

I support interrogations that do not inflict physical pain, drugs or mental damage. The mistreatment of the Abu Graib prisoners was certainly wrongful but let's get real - it was not "torture."

The attempt by the leftist MSM is just disgusting in its attempt to place the mistreatment of the Abu Graib prisoners as a moral equivalent to the beheadings, other murders and true torture inflicted by our enemies.

To place this in perspective, the MSM really wants to create a climate of public opinion that would prevent the President from further exercise of American power. Abu Graib gave the MSM a hook like the My Lai murders from the Vietnam War and the Eddie Adams photograph. That SSG Frederick and his cohorts gave this propaganda gift to the MSM is unforgivable.

Posted by Breaker at January 7, 2005 07:21 PM

The way Abu Graib is used by the left is par for the course, alas in politics. The psychological effect of the
image, whether it is a hood, flip-flopping, slam dunk, Willie Horton, wolves coming after us, or Ms Kerry telling someone to shove it all get used by the other side and their minions either at Fox or in the MSM to connote some "larger problem" or fatal flaw in the opponent and/or his methods, associates, policies, whatever. It is pathetic to hear it now reported from either side. There hardly is ever any balance, because the apparent drama of the expose works better without balance.
The height of absurdity is when you now have these mouthpieces of the left and right now interviewing Amber Frey. Sean Hannity asking her about her religious beliefs and how they were involved was just too wierd.

Dwight

Posted by Dwight at January 7, 2005 07:56 PM

I am upset by Abu Gharib! Iraqis get their dominiatrixes for free and Americans have to pay for theirs!

Indeed!

Posted by Mark A Framness at January 7, 2005 08:16 PM

>>I'm not sure if this is the author's intent, but this "torture test" reaks (sic) of an attempt to minimize the problem of torture.<<

I just have a real problem with the term "torture" being thrown around so easily. Prisoner abuse, maybe, but not torture. Abu Graib was a true location of torture during Saddam's reign of terror. What our guys and gals did was little more than the hazings that occur on college campuses all over the U.S., and yes, sometimes a death results from them, too. I'm not saying that's a good thing, and in those cases punishment is warranted.

The main thing to remember is that these are not uniformed, enemy combatants, fighting for a recognized force from a government. They are insurgents, terrorists (both imported & home grown) and suicide/homicide bombers (who didn't manage to get the fuse lit!). Those who sympathize with these animals are severely morally conflicted.

Posted by OkieBoy at January 7, 2005 08:22 PM

Again, though - anyone: I'm in sympathy with the posting and find Hersh despicable but still, what's up with Andrew S's reports of far wider problems, like rape and really disgusting other stuff that seems designed (IF true) to destroy our reputation in the world and in Iraq especially? is it all just nonsense? Does it exist but is not widespread at all? What do people think, or know?

Posted by a guy at January 7, 2005 08:40 PM

Having been at Abu Ghuraib during the time period of the abuses, it's good to finally see someone who wasn't there get it straight. As much as I like Andrew Sullivan, his panties tend to knot too swiftly to take his views on this seriously. He also makes the same mistake the MSM makes in trying to tie it all to Bush/Rumsfeld, when, as someone who was THERE, I know that there were NO such orders, nor were legal memos from the White House legal councils office distributed to our chain of command. We heard about these acts when the CID came down, investigated and arrested the clowns involved. NO ONE in the CIC knew what was going down in the wee hours at that place.
The ensueing media circus, which was aided and abetted by Fredricksons lawyers attempting to try the case in the press by blaming his superiors and trying to pin it on Bush/Rumsfeld. Fredricksons guilty plea shows the veracity of that; but the damage was done with a press eager to find anything in order to bring down the administration.

Thanks Greyhawk

Posted by sgt ted at January 7, 2005 08:57 PM

Thanks Greyhawk

Posted by sgt ted at January 7, 2005 08:58 PM

Torture! Torture! It pleasures me!

Posted by Criswell at January 7, 2005 09:00 PM

So, what Andrew is alleging can't be taken seriously? (I beleive he's also talking about stuff at other places, not just confined to AG.)

Posted by a guy at January 7, 2005 09:01 PM

I know a self-described liberal "progressive" who teaches high school history in metro D.C. (private school, natch). He takes perverse pleasure in quizzing my conservative knowledge of high school level current events.

Can't wait to throw this in his face. This is gonna' be sweet.

Posted by Terp Mole at January 7, 2005 09:11 PM

If the best the Dem's or anyone else can do are the prison photo's to explain why they think we are bad, they are pretty pathetic. I'll raise your naked man in a jail cell by a beheading. Oh ya, that's right. Criminal behavior is reserved for the United States only. All other behavior is excused because America exists.

Posted by Shane at January 7, 2005 09:20 PM

Looks like getting into college really is torture!

On a more serious note, there are far worse things that can happen than being in a naked pyramid. Being a history major at one time, I remember death by a thousand cuts, and "the seven gates of heavenly splendor" (it involved a box, grease, and hungry rats)- having rock music played at me all day doesn't sound like that harsh of a punishment.

Posted by Bob Brenton at January 7, 2005 09:28 PM

Greyhawk,

Nice thread.

Comments are most enlightening.

Reminds me why we are a nation of laws, not men.

Posted by imperfect at January 7, 2005 09:31 PM

"Criminal behavior is reserved for the United States only. All other behavior is excused because America exists."

Absolutely, Shane. Remember, to the left, this is an "illegal war" and a "war for oil." The "insurgents" and "freedom fighters" are only "doing what's best for the Iraqi people." President Bush is a "war criminal" who has [personally] killed "hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraq civilians" due to "indiscriminate bombing." The "torture" at Abu Ghraib was personally ordered by President Bush and Rumsfeld and was just a small taste of the "atrocities" this administration has committed.

Thank goodness we have the leftists who don't let their hatred of President Bush and his administration blind them to the truth!

Posted by Jinx McHue at January 7, 2005 09:39 PM

Simple test for where to draw the line: we should treat people we capture exactly the same as we want to be treated ourselves (when captured). That's sound morality and it's sound military policy. To do otherwise is to increase the danger our troops face, when captured.

We're in sad shape if we have to resort to saying that (paraphrase) "at least we're not as brutal as the other guy" (and that sentiment appears in various forms over and over again in this thread). That kind of thinking only appears when we're both morally weak and militarily weak. The strong don't compromise their principles just because they're fighting an unprincipled adversary. Only the weak do so.

It's clear that Bush and Gonzales et al created an environment encouraging abuse, and this has roots in Bush's own record as governor (http://agitprop.org.au/nowar/20040506_ae_abuse_in_us_prisons.php). The ultimate disgrace is that now instead of standing behind the troops, they're hiding behind the troops, passing the buck to the lowest level. If Bush had the courage of his convictions, he would be pinning a medal on Sivits and the rest, presenting them as examples of the proper way (according to Bush, at least) to be really tough on terrorism. Instead we're bringing charges against them. That's cowardice and hypocrisy.

Posted by jukeboxgrad at January 7, 2005 10:03 PM

"Simple test for where to draw the line: we should treat people we capture exactly the same as we want to be treated ourselves (when captured). That's sound morality and it's sound military policy. To do otherwise is to increase the danger our troops face, when captured."

Wrong! While I agree this position is morally sound, it is naive as policy. The opposition in this war could care less how their prisoners are treated by the U.S. Regardless of how kind or brutal we are, they will remain brutal. It is a part of their very belief system that abuse of a muslim is merely a test of faith by Allah and the death of a muslim in a jihad simply results in a life in paradise. Meanwhile, the abuse, torture or death of a non-muslim prisoner is the treatment required towards infidels.

It is dangerously naive to believe that "if we just treat them nice, they will treat us nice". This kind of thinking is the exact thing that results in the conclusion that 9/11 was America's fault. Of course, its all rooted in our support for Israel and if we would just aid in the destruction of Israel to return the "Palestinian Lands" (Such an indigenous people is this particular location have never existed), then we will be totally safe from all future islamic extremists terror attacks.

So long as one denies the fundamental truth that islamic extremists hate America for what it stands for (liberated voting women, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc - all things incompatible with their religious beliefs) NOT for what it does, then one is doomed to be subject to another, perhaps far worse, 9/11.

Posted by Fatal at January 7, 2005 10:45 PM

What concerns me in this coversation is that multiple issues have been lumped under the heading of "torture." As I see it the separate issues are (at least)...

1. The idiots at Abu Graib (and possibly elsewhere) who abused prisoners for fun

2. The LEGAL line between coersion and torture in interrogations

3. The moral/philsophical/security guidelines for coersion and interrogation (how far should U.S. interrogators go?)

4. The possibility that U.S. interrogators have gone beyond what they are legally allowed to do.

5. The question of whether White House guidelines or "attitudes" encouraged illegal/immoral acts on the part of military/CIA/etc.

Unfortunately, the two main thoughts about these issues seem to be "It doesn't matter 'cause they're worse," and "Bush is evil."

[For the record, I find #1 abhorrent--throw the book at them, #2 & #3 worth discussing, #4 unknown at this time, and #5 lacking in rational evidence]

Posted by Beth at January 7, 2005 10:46 PM

Abu Ghraib was shameful and the people involved are rightly convicted and in military prisons.

On the other hand, if I were to treat others as I'd like to be treated... I wouldn't even be able to put them in jail. I mean... I don't want to be locked up. If I deserved it, I'm pretty sure I'd still not want to be locked up.

But I have to say that *this* statement is simply delusional... "To do otherwise is to increase the danger our troops face, when captured."

It is not *possible* to increase the danger our troops face when captured. In theory, yes, this is what the Geneva convention and rules of war are meant to ensure. Both sides agree to certain restrictions, not using medical transport or personel for military purposes, treating prisoners humanely, differentiating between combatants and non-combatants. That the enemy uses mosques as fire bases, bombs hospitals, targets civilians, and brutally murders captives, does not mean that we should do the same. But the suggestion that somehow captives might be treated *worse* if we pay less care to the welfare of our captives is simply not *possible*.

As a motivation for good behavior it fails. Utterly. I talked about my friend who'd done SERE's. I understand that it was just a pale reflection of what could be expected to happen in "real life". My friend understood it too. And we saw it on television, aparently celebrated by the enemy in the street, when civilian contractors and other non-combatants, begged for their lives and had their heads sawed off. Our troops found rooms with blood stained walls. *That* is the minimum of what any of our troops face if captured. It can't *get* worse... broken and bloody and hanging from a bridge.

I'm not *for* torture, given a reasonable definition of what counts as torture. But pu-leez, we should be good because of how they might treat troops that are captured? What planet do you live on?

Posted by Julie at January 7, 2005 10:52 PM

I am really tired of the "At least we don't behead people" line. We are trying to export our values to these people- therefore we have to model those values for them. We cannot do anything in Abu Ghraib that we would not do in our local police station or else we are hypocrites. It does not matter that we are not as bad as they are- they never held themselves up as the example the whole world whould follow. When you are trying to build a democracy you have to act like a democracy- we cannot use coercive techniques when we are trying to get a Los Angleles drug dealer to give up his kingpin- therefore we cannot use coercive techniques when we are trying to get a terror suspect to give up his leader either. We have to be who we say we are or else we have no authority. Just because Saddam tortured people does not mean we can- Saddam never claimed that Iraq was a beacon of freedom and justice- we do claim that.

Posted by librarianbarbie at January 7, 2005 11:53 PM

"We are trying to export our values to these people- therefore we have to model those values for them."

Uhm, I am afraid you are very confused. We are not trying to export our values to the terrorists (insurgents - snort!), we are tying to kill them.

The people we are trying to export our values to, are not the ones kidnapping, sawing off heads, torturing, etc. They are the every day folks in Iraq who want to vote for their own leaders, live in a land free of the fear of the likes of Saddam and have a shot at making a better life for themselves.

Its a completely insincere fallacy to equate our treatment of the folks at Abu Gharib with the torture suffered by the populace under Saddam (not to mention the mass graves of kurds and children, the rape rooms, the true torture chambers, etc.) Equating the U.S. to Saddam is a non-sequitor.

Finally, the drug king-pin has not expressed a religiously based determination to exterminate anyone and everyone who does not profess to believe as he does. He isn't going to fly planes into towers and kill thousands of totally innocent people. The criminal is just that, a criminal subject to the protections of the U.S. Constitution. Subjecting terrorists (who are not mere criminals - so no U.S. Constitutional protection, not mere POW's - so no Geneva Convention protections - not even enemy combatants - so not deserving of even due process), to DISCOMFORT or HUMILIATION ("Wah, you hurt my feelings by putting those panties on my head") in order to save the lives of innocent Americans is no vice.

Posted by Fatal at January 8, 2005 12:21 AM

The first responsibility of the government, be it for civilians or military personnel, is to protect its citizens. When the enemy uses our morality against us, it is suicide to accommodate them. Terrorists are taught that we will not torture them, but will give them Korans, show them where to pray, give them fruit, etc. They have been taught to just wait it out silently. In Iraq, they know that we cannot hold them for more than three days without prosecutable proof, so they sit mum as they wait for release. They recognize it as a weakness, which it certainly is, and they exploit it to the fullest. And our people die.

Gross physical torture isn't practical because you can't trust information to be true. Someone under that kind of torture will say anything. Besides that, it damages the torturer psychologically. For the mental health issues which would confront our own people alone, I would be against torture. Those two aspects, the health of the interrogators and the actual value of the information, preclude the use of real torture. It is impractical.

The kinds of things talked about, however, short of actual torture, ought to be used. If humiliation works, then do it. If hunger and thirst work, then do it. If shooting off a gun by the head of a recalcitrant terrorist will open his mouth, then do it. If telling a terrorist that he will die an old man at Gitmo makes him talk, so be it. If drugs work, use them.

As to what it does to the enemy, I don't really give a rat's ass. Why on earth should I care about anyone who devotes his life to killing me and mine? I don't. Such a person has given up any claim to civilization, morality or its benefits. The only moral reason for anything we do in handling such a person we do in our own self-interest and protection, i.e., our own benefit, not theirs. To do anything else is to agree to commit suicide. That's their shtick, not mine.

Posted by Dee Bates at January 8, 2005 01:17 AM

I see we have some adherents to the NY Times school of journalism - "fake but accurate" (Mithras, Kman, RobW). So what if this story is false, it portrays a greater "truth" about this administration.

Truth is just relative anyway, right?

Posted by antimedia at January 8, 2005 01:21 AM

This is a much more effective torture. Play it over and over, real loud.

Easier than SERE school.
http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2005/01/terrorist-interrogations-suggestions.html

Posted by CDR Salamander at January 8, 2005 01:38 AM

Torture is horrid, however so is prevarication! Now what do we get when both are mixed up together? Well..............

Posted by Rob at January 8, 2005 01:59 AM

Torture = The infliction of pain to extract information.

Naked pyramids? Panties on the head? Wrong end of a leash? Been there, done that, it doesn't hurt.....in fact, most times you have to pay extra for it!

Posted by Oliver Snodwell at January 8, 2005 02:12 AM

I agree that the soldiers in the Abu G' incident were idiots. To hurt anyone for sadistic fun is criminal.

The screwed up part of the whole deal was the "witch hunt" climate that came afterwards.

Did anyone know that the Army CID was instructed to investigate ANY allegation of abuse that was presented or SUGGESTED to them? They got to the point where they were translating articles out of the local Iraqi papers and conducting investigations based on that! The CID did not have sufficient manpower to conduct other investigations because of the "witch hunt".

The problem with this is that once the Abu G incident took on a scandal-sized proportion, every Jihadist and opportunist Iraqi in the country came out of the woodwork to try to take advantage of the situation. Some Iraqis would come in and say they were captured by Americans during a raid and subsequently tortured...and then they would say something like this, "oh by the way did I tell you that when they raided my house they stole 50,000 dollars in US currency that I had, and destroyed all my antique furniture worth thousands of dollars? Could I be reimbursed please?"

Now any investigator in the world would know that this guy is full of crap...but they investigated it ANYWAY!!

This situation has got to stop!! Troops are going to get hurt and killed as a result of all this politically correct mumbo-jumbo. Define what troops can do and not do in a hostile detention situation...and be done with it!

Posted by TBone at January 8, 2005 02:53 AM

Funny, I got (http://incoherantstudy.blogspot.com/2005/01/abu-ghraib-quiz.html) 7 out of 10 right, simply by picking the most exculpatory answer, and could have gotten 8 out of 10 if I'd been more consistent about that. Of course, nothing here indicates any consistent pattern of MSM bias or anything...

Posted by Jonathan Cast at January 8, 2005 03:22 AM

Would you mind telling me the date for this picture?

http://ancapistan.typepad.com/photos/abuse_of_iraqis/60miniiusiraqitortured11.html

Also, I'm not quite clear as to whether this guy was one of the ones fighting or not. Supposedly, he was being interrogated, but that's from MSM.

http://ancapistan.typepad.com/photos/abuse_of_iraqis/abughraib2dog.html

Posted by tex at January 8, 2005 04:03 AM

Quote by Frederick's uncle: "The Army had the opportunity for this not to come out, not to be on 60 Minutes, But the Army decided to prosecute those six G.I.'s because they thought me and my family were a bunch of poor, dirt people who could not do anything about it. But unfortunately, that was not the case."

He seems to have proven the point about them being dirt people. How many soldiers were they trying to have killed by their actions. One more case of converging 5th columns. The ideas of bad seed causing bad people from the late 1800's seem to be alive and well in their family. May all of them rot in Hell.

Posted by jns at January 8, 2005 06:31 PM

We will loose this war with the pc idea of not being able to use aggressive means to get information from these terrorists. It sickens me that people care one wit about these murdering barbarians. Humiliation is not torture. Neither is a little pain. My father fought at the Battle of the Bulge. He helped to liberate Dachau. Do you know what our soldiers did to the commanders and other Nazi's at Dachau? They lined them up and shot them.
The loss of our men and women sickens me. The only way to crush the enemy is to CRUSH them and do it decisively. That is how you win wars. This "sensitive war" is what is killing our boys/girls.
If humility, fear and a little pain get's information that can give us an edge...Do It!

Posted by Sweetjustusnow at January 9, 2005 12:51 AM

This was not torture by any standard. At worst it was abuse. It was sophomoric, similar to a fraternaty ritual. I think the question to ask the "tortured" prisoners is whose custody would they rather be under. American? Or Iraq, Syria, Iran, or Pakistan? Seems to me they suffered some humility but still have their eyes, ears, hands and family jewels and that might not be the case if it were other than American custody.

Posted by Iceman 1955 at January 9, 2005 03:04 AM

"It is dangerously naive to believe that 'if we just treat them nice, they will treat us nice' ...

It would be a mistake to overestimate the effect, but it's also a mistake to dismiss it. The parties in a war influence each other. We can do more to try to influence their behavior. Instead, we're allowing them to influence our behavior. Every step we take in this direction we become more like them. This is a victory for them.

Also, it's not just this war. It's a question of every future war, too. When we condone certain practices, we lose any moral basis for complaining in the future when someone turns around and applies those practices to us. We've given unknown future enemies a tool to use against us, not just from a military perspective, but also with regard to diplomacy and public opinion.

By the way, there's little or no evidence that coercion and torture generally tend to produce useful information. For example, one would think that our methods, if they were effective, would have uncovered OBL by now, given the number of people we've locked up. It's naive to believe that if we're willing to sacrifice our principles and become a little bit more like our brutal enemies, that will make us safer.

I think a lot of the impulse to condone abuse comes from the fact that we're pissed, vengeful, and maybe even desperate (given that more than 3 years after 9/11, OBL is still grinning). But it's wrong, ineffective and ultimately self-destructive.

"But pu-leez, we should be good because of how they might treat troops that are captured?"

No, we should be good because we have values. But when we do the right thing it also gives us more of a moral lever (in this and all future wars) to influence our enemies to do the right thing. It also gives a billion Muslims a reason to respect us.

"Equating the U.S. to Saddam is a non-sequitor"

No one is saying we're not different from Saddam. The trouble is we need to be more different. What a major blunder that instead of knocking down Abu Ghraib, or turning it into a school or a hospital, we turned it into a center for abuse.

"We are not trying to export our values to the terrorists ..., we are tying to kill them. The people we are trying to export our values to, are not the ones kidnapping, sawing off heads, torturing, etc."

Trouble is, the "terrorists" aren't the only people who get to see what we do. Everyone (in Iraq and elsewhere) gets to see. And what they get to see is that 19 guys with box-cutters (or whatever) were all it took to get the ostensibly strongest country in the history of the world to abandon its own values. This is the surest way to demonstrate to the world that we are weak, both morally and militarily. And that we have a double-standard when we preach about human rights.

"When the enemy uses our morality against us, it is suicide to accommodate them."

If we truly can't survive without sacrificing our morality, we need to ask ourselves how we ended up in such a position of profound weakness.

Actually, what our enemy is using against us right now is not our morality but rather our lack of morality. Abu Ghraib et al are a recruiting bonanza for OBL.

"I agree this position is morally sound"

Then it's too bad you're not willing to stand up for your morality (I wonder if you're one of those "moral values" voters). That in itself is a victory for our enemies. The road you're on leads in the direction of us becoming no different than the people we're fighting.

Beth sees a lack of "rational evidence" indicating a connection between White House attitudes and a widespread pattern of abuse. Now that's what I call naive, to be unable to connect the dots between Gonzales saying the Geneva Conventions are "quaint" and "obsolete," and soldiers getting the impression that they don't necessarily have to treat their prisoners as human beings.

You also might want to review the FBI emails (http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=17216&c=206) that refer to an Executive Order from the president apparently authorizing certain "questionable" interrogation techniques. Don't read these emails while you're having dinner. Reading these memos makes clear that it goes way beyond Abu Ghraib, and it goes way beyond putting panties on someone's head.

Posted by jukeboxgrad at January 9, 2005 06:14 AM

Jukebox, try a little context next time! In a war in which only one side is a signatory to the Conventions and is observing them in principle, they ARE inherently "quaint" and "obsolete!" However, their quaintness and obsolesence does not lead immediately to the idea that we stop treating people humanely. And besides, Gonzales was speaking from a LEGAL point of view, not a POLICY point of view. And legally speaking, he was absolutely correct. Policy makers need to know the legal guidelines in which they must operate as they consider and formulate all policy possiblities. He was merely giving his opinion on the application/non-application of the law.

A little education would help, too. The Geneva Conventions require fighters to be under the command of a government, wear uniforms, and carry their weapons openly, among other things in order to be eligible for treatment under the Conventions (treatment under the Conventions is the "carrot" that was supposed to keep fighters within the "rules of war"). Terrorists and "insurgents" do none of those things and so are LEGALLY entitled to NOTHING. The question of how they SHOULD BE treated from a moral and ethical perspective is another matter, of course. But to say that the Geneva Conventions apply to this situation shows a real lack of knowledge about the very thing you are trying to argue!

I personally live my life by some pretty high ethical standards, and hope that my country can too, but that's a separate issue from what I'm about to say...You are applying Western values to Middle Eastern peoples when you say that adhering to our morals and ethics shows the terrorists and the innocent Iraqis how strong we are. Try to be a little bit more multicultural next time. Talk about naivete!

And if you read the links that Greyhawk offered, you'd find that Granger was a civilian prison guard who had previously been in trouble for how he treated civilian prisoners in the U.S. I'm sure he got his ideas on prisoner treatment back then straight from the White House... /sarcasm

Out of respect for Blackfive, I'm trying to keep my temper here, and I don't have the time to Fisk the entire post. Anybody here have the time or energy to deal with the smorgasboard of naivete and ignorance Jukebox offers up?

One more thing...the idea that the White House's acknowledgement of legal truth gave soldiers the idea they could mistreat prisoners implies that the average soldiers is chomping at the bit to become a subhuman piece of trash and it is only the fear of retribution that keeps him tolerably under control is disgusting. I'm non-military, so I can say this without being accused of covering my own butt...

That is a slanderous bunch of $&%# on a group of people of which the majority are some of the finest and most compassionate, tender-hearted people I have met!

Posted by Beth at January 9, 2005 07:07 AM

Oops! SORRY, GREYHAWK! I was so upset I forgot what blog I was on.

Posted by Beth at January 9, 2005 07:14 AM

�The American public needs to understand we�re talking about rape and murder here. We�re not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience.� -- Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, member of the Senate Armed Forces Committee, during the May, 2004 Abu Ghraib hearings.

Posted by Simmie at January 9, 2005 06:25 PM

And the American public needs to know that Sen. Graham was referring to criminal acts on the part of a few Americans, NOT the interrogation of prisoners.

It's all about context, context, context.

And for the hundredth time, Abu Graib was abuse by prison guards, NOT torture for the purpose of extracting information/desired behavior. Neither of those are pretty issues, but they are SEPARATE ISSUES.

Posted by Beth at January 9, 2005 07:29 PM

Very interesting comments. Agree with commenter "Fatal" and many other rational writers above.

I still have questions about when and who gave the pictures to Hersh and Mapes. Was it the same source?

Commenter "Old Maltese" at this site wrote on 5/9/04: " Frederick's uncle says that in *March* he contacted David Hackworth's office, which put him in touch with 60 Minutes II." (This apparently according to a NYTimes May 8 story. But something sounds fishy to me.)

Why would a family member of Army Reserve Staff Sgt. Ivan "Chip" Frederick give incriminating photographs to the media? Could a family member be so mercenary as to take money for photos that would reflect badly on their relative, the Armed Services and the country? Or was the family member perhaps misled into believing he/she was somehow helping Frederick by a promise of legal aid for Frederick from Mapes or Hersh? Could that be why Hersh's lawyer friend, Gary Myers, was involved? We've seen the use of lawyers as operatives so many times. It would be a serious conflict of interest if a lawyer "represented" a defendant for ulterior motives (to get inside information/photographs and to ensure conviction).

While facing court martial in Apr 04, Frederick spoke to Rather by phone from Baghdad for CBS 60 Min II show. (CBSnews 4/27/04)

The CBSnews.com article also states:

"Six months before he faced a court martial, Frederick sent home a video diary of his trip across the country�" (But it doesn't say that diary contained the "abuse" photographs. Could this be CBS covering for their real source of the pictures � Hersh via Gary Myers?)

"Frederick's letters and email messages home also offer clues to problems at the prison� " (How did CBS get access to these? Were they already in contact with Chip Frederick or his family prior to the phone call with Rather? Or did this private and confidential information come from Hersh via Gary Myers?)

Posted by BR at January 10, 2005 08:58 AM

I was a 96C (interrogator / translator / interpreter) in the Army during the 70s. We would NEVER let MPs have anything to do with interrogating prinsoners. They didn't have the training for it. So when SSG Frederick claimed to have been ordered to abuse prisoners by MI I knew he had to be lying. No one who has had any training in interrogations would have a prisoner humiliated in front of a woman. He would just be too difficult to question afterwards & would not cooperate. Also, since when does someone make E-6 in the MPs without knowing ANYTHING about the treatment of prisoners, especially a man who is a prison guard in cicilian life? Federick lied right up to his guilty plea & deserves his years in Levenworth.

Another point, where were the officers? This was going on & not one officer noticed anything? Were they sleeping through ALL the night shifts?

Posted by Ex MI at January 10, 2005 01:14 PM

One time, I had a snake. I fed him so beer...he was so messed up.

Posted by Snake at January 10, 2005 03:54 PM

Re: Col. Hackworth's office allegedly putting Frederick's uncle in contact with CBS 60 Minutes II, quoted above.

It's interesting that in the Thornburgh Report released today, 2/10/05, on CBS's use of fake docs to undermine Pres. Bush: Hackworth is mentioned again. Per the report he authenticated the fake docs prior to airing in an interview with Dan Rather.

There are links to Exhibits containing interview transcripts with Hackworth here. (In case my URL coding doesn't work, it's at:
http://klng.com/newsstand/newsstand_detail.asp?id=000066438401

Posted by BR at January 10, 2005 11:14 PM

"In a war in which only one side is a signatory to the Conventions and is observing them in principle, they ARE inherently 'quaint' and 'obsolete!'"

That statement is wrong, legally and morally. Unfortunately, though, in the future we'll have enemies who think like you. They'll tell the world "we don't have to play by the rules when we fight the US, because they demonstrated they don't care about the rules."

"Gonzales was speaking from a LEGAL point of view, not a POLICY point of view."

You're entitled to your opinion. I consider that political double-talk.

"Terrorists and 'insurgents' do none of those things and so are LEGALLY entitled to NOTHING ... to say that the Geneva Conventions apply to this situation shows a real lack of knowledge about the very thing you are trying to argue!"

Sorry, you're the one with the lack of knowledge. It's true, they are violating GC by fighting without wearing insignia. But we are still bound by the GC. Their lack of insignia simply means we're obligated to treat them as civilians, not POW (see http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/pow-bck.htm).

"You are applying Western values to Middle Eastern peoples when you say that adhering to our morals and ethics shows the terrorists and the innocent Iraqis how strong we are."

More important than showing we're strong, it's a question of being strong. The fact that we're so willing to jettison our values is the best proof that we're not. Incidentally, your comment is racist.

"Granger was a civilian prison guard who had previously been in trouble for how he treated civilian prisoners in the U.S."

Exactly. Which means it was a systemic failure on our part that we gave him the job we did (in Iraq). He was an accident waiting to happen. His commanders checked him out about as thoroughly as Gonzales checked out Kerik. Maybe he was even selected for the job specifically because he was known to be "tough."

"I'm sure he got his ideas on prisoner treatment back then straight from the White House... /sarcasm"

In fact there is a direct line between Graner and Bush. As governor, Bush presided over a prison system that was infamous for employing men like Graner.

"the idea that the White House's acknowledgement of legal truth gave soldiers the idea they could mistreat prisoners implies that the average soldiers is chomping at the bit"

Most aren't, but a few obviously are. Add some encouragement from the top, and the result is this mess we're in.

"And the American public needs to know that Sen. Graham was referring to criminal acts on the part of a few Americans, NOT the interrogation of prisoners ... Abu Graib was abuse by prison guards, NOT torture for the purpose of extracting information/desired behavior. Neither of those are pretty issues, but they are SEPARATE ISSUES."

When we signal to our soldiers that the enemy isn't human, and that normal rules don't apply, this is what happens, both in and out of interrogation. Read the FBI emails. Abuse clearly happened during interrogations. You're trying to raise a distinction that is far less distinct than what you claim, and that avoids the underlying issue.

"since when does someone make E-6 in the MPs without knowing ANYTHING about the treatment of prisoners, especially a man who is a prison guard in cicilian life?"

I think it's pretty clear we're profoundly understaffed, and putting people in jobs they're not trained for.

Posted by jukeboxgrad at January 11, 2005 06:06 PM

This is my last comment on this issue, but I wanted to point out...

Selective quotation is an amazing thing. One could read Jukebox's last coimments and come to the conclusion that I don't think the U.S. has to play by the rules and that I think torturing and abusing people is okay.

Of course, my statements that "However, their [Conventions'] quaintness and obsolesence does not lead immediately to the idea that we stop treating people humanely." and "The question of how they [prisoners] SHOULD BE treated from a moral and ethical perspective is another matter, of course." are not convenient to the argument, so are ignored.

It's hard to have a discussion with someone who doesn't even acknowledge what has been said.

And the idea that the only distinction between legal analysis and policy is political "double-talk" is ridiculous. It's legal for me as a 30-something to date an 18-year-old, but it's not my policy.

Posted by Beth at January 12, 2005 12:19 PM

Okay, six out of ten here, but the six I got I KNEW -- and I guarantee that's better than average. :)

Posted by Kelly at January 12, 2005 05:03 PM

All of this reminds me why I fight against everything the USA stands for - including McDonalds(tm)

Posted by Osama bin Ladin at January 15, 2005 05:49 AM

All of you geniuses are not hearing the truth nor ARE you prepared for the consequencies we are about to face! I was in a war in 1969 in vietnam- a war very unpopular where a soldier could be killed at any time anywhere, where there were no frontlines. Sound familiar?
20 men were chosen at random from my unit to go on a secret mission into cambodia. We held memorial services for 3 of them who never made it back alive, this while tricky-dick was telling America " I did not send troops into cambodia" one soldier from Nashville, Tn. went home with 102 ears on a wire ring as a keepsake. So attrocities did take place by both sides just like John Kerry said they did. He was not lying! My point is this. War is hell, and sometimes there are no correct options to take except to face the truth and the facts, which are things this administration and the wrongwing press refuse to acknowledge! Only someone who has seen the horror of war up close and personal will make the statement that " we can only go to war because we have to, and never go to war just because it is politically correct or just because we can." Does this sound familiar?
You smart people who have all the correct answers for all Americans and think you are speaking for me need to loosen up! I can read as well as anyone and I can comprehend better than most! If you are not part of the solution, then you are the problem! If this political party in charge does not put AMERICA first, you will not be in power very long! To hell with a political party which uses failure as a format to destroy the middle class of Americans! we have not crossed the point of no return, so all you brilliant yes-men can still stop this regime from placing America in a "race-to-the-bottom". But, time is running out!No one, not rove, not congressmen joe, not cheney,no one can make shrub a good leader. You cannot get blood from a turnip! I respect the office of President, but not necessarily the person in it!

Posted by Tommy E. Ferrell at January 15, 2005 08:47 AM

Dammit I should be writing on my report on the earthquake instead of reading all this, but I can�t help it. Ok, here it goes:

The feeling of the cold floor against your bare feet makes the hairs all over your body stand on an end. They are watching you. Their eyes on your body, as bare as your feet, but not as cold as you�re overheated by shame, fear and anticipation that are raging through your body. The eyes are laughing with mirth and satisfaction. The mouths are smiling, making you wonder if they really get off on this. Then you hear the barking, it echoes through the room. Every bark, making you want to back away more, away from what you know will bring hurt and more pain. And as you see it, a large dog being hold back by a man that wouldn�t feel bad at all about loosening the leash for a moment so the dog can sink its sharp canines in your naked flesh, deep enough to reach bone� you know that is it. It will hurt you. It will make you bleed to death, the laughter and jaunts of the guards in your ears.
You try to make yourself smaller, holding your hands up in a sign of defeat. Hoping that the dog will think you�re not worth being attacked. Hoping your captor will think it enough that you�re totally at his mercy. You look up at him, at those cold eyes. �Please,� you beg. �Have mercy�� All you get is a wry smile and the soft click of a leash that is taken off the dog that is now jumping at you, teeth bared and ready to tear at you�

And that is only the first picture� no torture?

http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444

Posted by Eve at January 17, 2005 09:07 PM

Two things,

jukeboxgrad is putting the truth to his name.

Ferrell, you are so full of s**t, it's coming out of your ears. Go find another war to be from.

Posted by Mike H. at January 18, 2005 11:01 PM

I'm still waiting for europe to apologise for the holocaust.

Posted by Greta at January 19, 2005 12:11 AM

An apology, Greta? From Europe? All of Europe? Will it make anything better? Can you just pinpoint: that land is to blame and this one... oh and that one too...: you owe us an apology and then I can rest soundly!
'Yes, yes, an apology will make up for everything... Sorry that my grandfather tortured your ancestors and tried to kill them and all that, but it's alright now, isn't it? after all: I apologised!'

Most people are like 'Don't think in black and white'... think in black and greys then? Where do you draw a line? What is concidered good, bad, tortue, persuation...
Do I actually have a right of speaking here? How can I claim things when I have not been part of it? I didn't kill anyone, for exaple, how can I judge that it is right? Or wrong for that matter? But then you come to the point where you try to find the right thing to do: claim what you think or stay silent? And that brings you to the point: who decides what is right? Wrong? And then I can go on in a circle...

Posted by Eve at January 19, 2005 01:26 PM

Well, I went through SERE school, and I've been to pain-in-the-a$$ Gitmo, and you bet it wasn't even a simulation of real torture, or real incarceration at Abu Ghraib. You ain't been there Fatal, so yer talkin' out of yer a$$. I choose to believe the sources I've read that beatings, killings and REAL torture occured there, and that a sizeable portion of the inmates were guilty of nothing more than making anti-American REMARKS. The infantile arguement of "well HE did it!" is laughable. If we stoop to the level of SOME of our enemies, then there's no distinction. Then WE are the BAD guys. And I suspect we are, vis-a-vis Iraq. I genuinely suspect we are. The Iraqi populace KNOW we are.

Posted by anchor at January 19, 2005 05:47 PM

Bravo Zulu, Greyhawk.

I missed # 2 also, and didnt realize the depth of Hersh's lies, or the despicable involvement of Mapes and the Hackworth connection until after Rathergate.

They are simply traitors, and dishonor all other journalists and the principle of the constitutional protection of free speech.

Skeej

PS: I was waterboarded at SERE in the 70s. Its very effective and (obviously) non-fatal.

Posted by Skeej at January 25, 2005 07:44 PM

Where is the quiz?

Posted by looking at February 25, 2005 04:29 PM

Hide Comments | Show/Add Comments in Popup Window(83) | (Note: You must refresh main page to view newly posted comments here)