Letters to the Editor
ondelette
Published Letters: 1986 Editor's Choice: 19
-
A couple of things
[Read the article: Al-Qaida does it, too]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I have a couple of comments, but I have to get some burdens off first. I read the Andrew Sullivan piece through a cloud of tears. The same tears that show up when I watch "The Human Behavior Experiments" or "Torture: The Guantanamo Guidebook" (and sequel) or "Ghosts of Abu Ghraib". I'm not even quite sure what they are, grief, anger, horror or whatever. Clouds turn to rain when I get to bebop-o's posts this morning. I'm grateful that he posted them, but they are very hard for me to read.
There was one ICRC representative to cover all of the United States and Canada in 2001, when this administration took office. By the time Abu Ghraib broke in April 2004, the number had tripled. There are now nine, including some to monitor violations w/respect to Katrina. For those unfamiliar with the way the ICRC operates, these numbers bear a direct relation to the amount of abuse of International Humanitarian Law the ICRC believes it needs to monitor. These numbers are nothing short of disgusting.
There is nothing to laugh at here. Nothing at all.
Now that I got that off my chest, Glenn, I think that you are misinterpreting Peggy Noonan. I think she is talking about dissent among conservatives that hasn't been tolerated, not dissent among Bush's base. Andrew Sullivan is a good example of dissent (not about the war, but certainly, as your post points out, about torture).
That there is possibly a real schism among conservative ranks is also evidenced by David Brooks' piece in today's NYT (it's a reasonable read if you want to know what Fred Thompson is believed to represent among conservatives). Brooks, a neocon from the original crowd, goes along with Thompson on restoring Goldwater conservatism up to a point, then very definitely splits with that philosophy on the new-era neocon fantasy of the brave new world. I don't know how strong the split is, but it is really there, Noonan isn't imagining things or creating it.
Sorry about the words above, bebop-o, I really did like your post. It's just that I have no problem bandaging hamburger, but I can't listen to stories about cruelty without getting hurt.
-
@L.W.M.
[Read the article: Al-Qaida does it, too]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That's the sequel to "Torture: The Guantanamo Guidebook".
-
Yes, L.W.M.
[Read the article: Al-Qaida does it, too]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I saw it. I have both of them. I was surprised by the description a bit -- I just went back and skipped through it to make sure they were the same movie. It isn't just a documentation of the Uzbek regime's tortures. It does interview Craig Murray, and document the Uzbek regime's abuses, some on behalf of the U.S. CIA, and Britain's MI6, at the end of the piece. But the whole thing is a documentary on extraordinary rendition by the U.S. and Britain.
The first one is about an experiment where they took British volunteers and subjected them to the interrogation methods documented at Guantanamo for a couple of days. They break them.
Both are horrible to watch, you need an empty stomach.
-
Acknowledged
[Read the article: Al-Qaida does it, too]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The number of conservatives objecting to Bush's torture and other power-expanding programs is miniscule, but they broke with Bush long before Noonan ever thought about it - when she was still writing odes to Bush's greatness.
Good point, I hadn't thought about the timing.
I have a lot of conservative coworkers who cannot handle the torture stuff, and very few who apologize for it, perhaps I have unconventional conservative friends. And in terms of timing, come to think of it, they've split with him on torture the whole time.
-
Shooter, it's too bad you're fighting the wrong war
[Read the article: Al-Qaida does it, too]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We would have something to agree on if you were really concentrating on eliminating Al Qaeda. But you aren't, you have too many other enemies: Iraqis, Democrats, Mommy people, Lefties, you name it. And you've advocated, however facetiously, doing inhumane things to all of them on occasion.
Shall we count your word occurences like you count Krugman's?
-
Does anyone else have a problem with Feinstein and Whitehouse?
[Read the article: Al-Qaida does it, too]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn notes that Senators Feinstein and Whitehouse offer a proposal to ban treatment beyond the Army Field Manual and involving pressure and pain,
" except where the President certifies "that an individual has information about a specific and imminent threat."
Does anybody else have a problem with this? Since when does our compliance with international law include exceptions for ticking time bombs? Should we also have a provision that we will not use mustard gas "unless the other guys are really, really, bad"?
The following is Article 3 of the Third Geneva Conventions (sometimes refered to as "Common Article 3"), which the Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld, applied to all combatant prisoners in U.S. custody:
Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
I don't see an exception for the President of a "High Party" to decide that "in this case, since we really, really, need to know something, right now" inhumane treatment suddenly becomes legal.