Prev | List | Random | Next
Tigerhawk reads to us from Richard Clarke's book Against all Enemies:
Snatches, or more properly "extraordinary renditions," were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgement of the host government.... The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, "That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass." (pp. 143-144)"Rendition" is the handing over of suspects to "friendly" foreign governments for "interrogation".
"Grab ass" appears to have become the official policy.
Update: In case you missed the news, A suicide attacker steered a car packed with explosives toward U.S. soldiers giving away toys to children outside a hospital in central Iraq on Thursday, killing at least 31 people. Almost all of the victims were women and children, police said.
Here's a hypothetical question for the "anti-war" readers of this site. Suppose you have a terrorist in your custody. He tells you a similar attack is planned for tomorrow, but refuses to divulge additional information. Would you:
A. Bush lied!
B. Fire Cheney!!
C. The US used white phosphorus in Fallujah!!!
D. How dare you question my patriotism!?!!!
Write your answer on a 3x5 card and send it to someone who gives a damn. The rest of us have a war to fight.
More: A former Saddam Hussein torturer reminisces.
That was an awesome uppercut. Keep up the good work.Posted by Theway2k at November 25, 2005 04:36 PM
e) Torture his ass until he told me more of what I wanted to hear so I could then look like I was being forth coming with the public while also having "reliable" sources for my information thereby not lieing.
I would wonder two things:
1. How do I know he is a "terrorist?"
2. If he's in my custody, why would he tell me there's an attack coming tomorrow but nothing else? I mean, if someone was that stupid I'd have to wonder whether I could believe anything he told me. Unless, of course, the terrorist was Bill O'Leilly.Posted by Wilson Kolb at November 25, 2005 09:20 PM
You say it so much more effectively than I do. Thanks. I needed that!Posted by Rebecca McCormick at November 25, 2005 09:26 PM
p.s.: Loved the headline on this one. Makes me think of my favorite one-liner lately: If only Bush had gotten a blowjob, then we could impeach himPosted by Wilson Kolb at November 25, 2005 09:38 PM
> 1. How do I know he is a "terrorist?"
Maybe the way he blows up small children could be a clue.
> 2. If he's in my custody, why would he tell me there's an attack coming tomorrow but nothing else? I mean, if someone was that stupid I'd have to wonder whether I could believe anything he told me. Unless, of course, the terrorist was Bill O'Leilly.
Because if he tells you a lie, you make him watch back-to-back episodes of every reality TV show ever made. You make sure he knows this in advance. Would he take the risk? I wouldn't...
Make him listen to every tape of Cindy Sheehan ever made.Posted by MCPO Airdale at November 26, 2005 03:26 AM
Make him listen to Charlie Daniels.Posted by Old Soldier at November 26, 2005 08:21 AM
At this post, it appears Greyhawk is stating that it does not matter how we win the war as long as we win. As an Army officer (I believe) he is tacitly supporting the torture of the enemy. Interesting if not criminal. He tries to say, "Who cares how we win, as long as we win".
Well, as an American, I do care. I do care about the "how" as well as the outcome. It is moral and ethical laziness to not care about the methods. If the Army is torturing our enemy than it is guilty of a crime. If Army officers are tacitly supporting this method then they are personally guilty of a crime.
The idea that because Clinton supported extradition makes it somehow OK is ludicrous for two reasons. First, since when does the radical right use Clinton as their barometer for what is morally ethical and reasonable? You spent 8 years telling us he is morally bankrupt and now you use him to support your torture policy?
Second, even if Clinton supported it, who cares? Remember what your mom taught you (hopefully): Two wrongs do not make a right (or a right wing)!Posted by kevin at November 26, 2005 01:14 PM
Nicholas, if killing children is the definition of a terrorist, then do you define as terrorists the American soldiers whose bombs and bullets have killed more Iraqi children than all the U.S. civilians killed in the 9/11 attacks? Or is it only terrorism if your enemy kills children?
kevin, that's a great comment. You know, during WW2 the United States managed to win without adopting torture as a standard operating procedure. It was war, and all kinds of nasty things happen, but we didn't have perverted sex camps for German and Japanese P.O.W.s and civilians.
In fact, in either '43 or '44 -- I forget which -- there was a national outcry over the murder of ONE Italian P.O.W. at a stockade in Seattle. Funny how no one justified it by pointing at Mussolini's brutality.
As in so many cases, the rightwingnuts are in favor of so-called "traditional values" only when they can be used to justify their cruelty and their prejudices. In actuality, the Greyhawk Jawohl crowd hates every single thing America has ever stood for on this earth.Posted by Wilson Kolb at November 26, 2005 11:22 PM
That's not how I read this post at all. I think what he is pointing out is that sometimes co-ercive methods can be justified, and that a lot of the people trying to score political points over the issue are hypocrits.
I don't see anywhere in the post where he states or implies that he think it's worth going to any length to win. I think what he is saying is sometimes war is unpleasant you can't treat terrorists with kid gloves. That doesn't mean we want to treat them like Saddam treated his torture victims. I wouldn't allow that to happen and I hope Mr. Greyhawk would not either.
It's not a political question. It's a moral question, and it should be asked, debated and answered. But so many people seem to want to score political points over what is a serious issue, and I agree with him that it's disgusting.
I don't agree with the Bush administration's policies on how detainees are treated but I think it's irresponsible to lie in order to get one's point of view across. I've seen a lot of that lately. Let's have rational, well-reasoned dissent (which you have provided, thank you!) rather than some of the rantings we've been subjected to in the media recently.
Wilson, grow up.
Hmm, note where I say "It's not a political question." Well, I do think that's true, but it does have a political solution, that's for sure. My point is, I don't think it's worth point-scoring over torture (or non-torture) issues.
Sorry, didn't want to leave that ambiguous. Obviously the solution to any problem of legislation is political. But that doesn't mean you have to "play politics" to achieve it when it's as serious as this.
Sorry, that still doesn't sound right. How about this:
* Let's agree on definitions (what is torture, what is interrogation, what is co-ercion, etc.) and when each of them are or are not appropriate.
* Let's get that into law and make sure the law is enforced.
* THEN let's place the political blame for the failure to do so earlier and/or unconscionable actions which have been committed.
* Let's be fair in placing blame where blame lies, not just smearing it around. If former administrations set precedents, it's probably partially their fault. That doesn't mean the current one is absolved; but it's pretty poor to criticise one party for particular actions if you're not going to criticise all parties who took those actions.
Fixing the problem is more important than placing blame for it right now IMO. Has there even been significant political debate over the first point yet?
There is no debate on what constitutes "torture." That question has long since been settled. The fact that you pretend not to know the answer is evidence of nothing but your ignorance. The difference in this war is that the United States has incorporated torture into stand operating procedure for the military. That's never been done in the U.S. military, and it was one of the major points of prosecution against the Nazis at the Nuremburg Trials of 1946.
For you to argue that there's any ambiguity shows your complicity and your hatred for this country and everything it has ever stood for.Posted by Wilson Kolb at November 28, 2005 02:32 AM
Can I participate in this self-esteem workshop? OK.
Mr. Kolb, you are obviously the leader of the self-esteem club. You are a very caring person! That's special. You must like yourself so much! And that's really job number one - To like yourself. Not to save anybody's life, but to like yourself. That's the important thing, and you've got it down.
Because making somebody scream and cry and bleed is so wrong! I mean, I admit I'd brutalize someone to prevent a massacre of civilians, and I have to admit I'm bad. I'm a bad person. And you're obvioulsy better than me.
And that's why you're Mr. Self Esteem.
" PATRIOTISM " is a big word the FAR RIGHT CONCERITIVE PARTY uses to put people in there place, if your aganst the WAR your "UNPATRIOTIC".
IF you disagree with BUSH, CHENNY, RUMSFILD, KARL ROVE, ETC.
THE trouble is:
1) BUSH HID- IN THE AIR-GUARD.."NEVER TO SEE NAM"
2) CHENNY- RECIVED FIVE (5) DEFERRENTS REFUSSING
TO SERVE HIS COUNTRY.
3) RUMSFILD-TOUGHT AIR TRAINING MARKED (X) IN
BOXE NOT TO GO OVERSEAS.
4) KARL ROVE- FELT HE OWED HIS COUNTRY NO SERVICE
THE FAR RIGHT CALL BUSH,CHENNY, RUMSFILD AND ROVE
ITS funny that the FAR RIGHT, CONCERITIVE PARTY would want people that REFUSSED AND WENT OUT OF THERE WAY NOT TO SERVE THERE COUNTRY IN WAR.
BUT come into OFFICE PLANING AHEAD to go to WAR, SENDING 2,344 AMERICAN MEN and WOMAN TO THERE DEATH, OVER 16,000 PLUS TO RECIVE WOUNDS they will live with for the rest of there lives.
FOUR COWARDS WHO REFUSSED TO STAND and SERVE but have found the CATCHY words " STAY THE COUSE " AS OTHER DIE.
O YES LAST WEEK THEY CALLED REP MURTHA A COWARD AND VOTED TO " STAY THE COUSE "
ENLISTMENTS WERE DOWN AGAIN FOR THE EIGHTEENTH
"MR. SLEF ESTEEM"
LET get to the truth and ask your slef some questios:
1) HAVE YOU EVER KILLED ANY ONE ?
2) HAVE YOU TAKEN A BLAD DEEP INTO SOME ONE
AND WATCH THERE EYES ROLE OVER ?.
3) HAVE YOU PUSH A BLADE IN AND THE UP
YOUR HANDS FEEL THE HEAT OF BLOOD AND THE
GUTS OF ANOTHER SPILL OUT ?.
4) HAVE YOU EVER HELD A MANS MOUTH AS YOU CUT
HIS JUGULAR, SO HE WOULDN'T SCREAM OUT?.
IF you have done any two or three of my actions that I have posted, why would you ever want to TORTURE anyone. DO YOU feel a SORT OF POWER, CONTROL OR IS THE TRUTH YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN DEATH UP CLOSE ?.
IF I pushed you just a little you would tell me anything I wanted to hear, not saying it to be "TRUE"
I'M sorry if I posted a little too GROSS but what do you think WAR and TORTURE IS A CITCOM ON TV.
This thread has taken a bit of an odd twist, so to get it back on track:
- I'm not a pacifist, but I think war is a last resort.
- War is ugly and all sorts of ugly things will happen, but the countries of the world have agreed to certain "rules" by which it will be fought.
- You'd be a fool to think torture won't exist during a war, but the U.S. actions in Iraq have gone well beyond that. The United States incorporate torture into military S.O.P., in violation of a number of treaties it has signed over the years and in violation of this country's past practice and stated ideals.
- The wingnuts who want to ignore all this hate America and all it stands for. They also have no regard for the rule of law, which binds the United States to those treaties it has signed.
- The fact that an enemy commits atrocities doesn't free the U.S. to do the same. The best example in practice is WW2, where Japanese and german atrocities make anything al-Qaeda has done pale by comparison. Yet, in that war the United States did not incorporate torture and "sexual humiliation" as standard operating procedure.
- Not only does the right wing hate America and what it stands for, but it hates the truth. In the face of introvertible evidence of torture and a policy of torture, it continues to deny the facts and pump out lies.Posted by Wilson Kolb at November 28, 2005 03:18 PM
And one other thing: The fact that the "rules" of war are often broken does not render the rules irrelevant. All kinds of laws are often broken, but that doesn't mean we give up. The right wing doesn't understand, nor does it care about, the rule of law. For them, "might makes right."Posted by Wilson Kolb at November 28, 2005 03:20 PM
... introvertible evidence ...
Yeah, that fits your "evidence", Wilson ... as in evidence developed by someone who doesn't seem to get out much, and ignores the most basic tenets of human nature in formulating his opinions.
As for incontrovertible evidence ... you have yet to prove that torture is official policy. Stretching reports that **might** hint at it, if read with the right frame of mind, does not count.
All you do is smear, smear, smear ... and the smears are getting more desperate, based on the innuendo I am seeing from you lately. Or, is that intentional ... are you once again seeking troll "martyrdom"?