Here are a couple of emails worth sharing on the question of what we are doing to detainees we suspect of being insurgents in Iraq or terrorists anywhere:
Hate to sound flip, but relax. What was being done (and perhaps continues to be done) is not torture by any conventional definition. It only has become ‘torture’ because the pious among us have chosen to redefine the term without any sense of perspective. At worst we ‘waterboard’. At best, they behead. I’m sorry, but these are new times with a truly evil enemy that is determined at any cost to kill as many of us as possible by any means. I just don’t have a problem with making these people uncomfortable.
“Uncomfortable” in five certified cases means dead at the hands of American interrogators. 23 others have died in U.S. custody and their deaths are under investigation. Oh well. Then there’s this angle, suggested to me by a reader:
Since you want to continue to wallow in the Abu Ghraib “torture” allow me to point out a number of observations. Firstly, I pride myself on a skill that involves the dissection of pictures that would appear to portray certain things. I’ve looked carefully at the Abu Ghraib human “pyramid” and my assessment is that the prisoners in that particular picture are complicit in this so-called “torture”. I see a scenario wherein the guards say; “Hey, lets have some fun, you guys get naked and get into a pile and we’ll get some pictures”. Some say absolutely not and do not participate. Others say “Okay but we need to hide our faces”. Hence the pictures depict hooded prisoners.
You understand from this email how democracies can become police states. Because we look away.
SPEAKING OF WHICH: Heather Mac Donald continues to write about what the official formal policy was for Gitmo, as if the administration’s cover for what they sanctioned is proof of their innocence. She doesn’t mention the gaping loophole in Bush’s memo that allows deviation from the formal rules against torture for “military necessity.” She still appears not to have read the major government reports that cite top government decisions as leading to the abuses. She doesn’t address any of the non-Abu Ghraib torture incidents – in almost every branch of the military in Iraq. She doesn’t answer why the administration has itself renounced its own torture memo from 2002. If it had nothing to do with the problem, why did it need to be rescinded? Her final point is worth addressing frankly:
What is ultimately at stake in this debate is the validity of the administration’s decision not to confer Geneva Convention prisoner of war status on terrorists. Mr. Sullivan refuses to explain why he thinks that terrorists who aim to massacre as many civilians as possible, hide in the civilian population, and fail to carry arms openly or wear uniforms, should be granted status as lawful combatants. Nor does he explain how such a decision would lead to a safer, more law-abiding world.
I disagree that that is what is at issue. Even if the alleged terrorists (and remember they include non-Qaeda captives in Iraq, according to Gonzales) are unlawful combatants, they still, according to U.S. law, should be free from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment that would “shock the conscience.” I fail to see why those who support this war, those who are principled conservatives, those who believe that the government should never be above the law, should still be finding pathetic excuses for this stain on the honor of the United States and its rightly revered armed forces.
BUSH ON GAYS: He’s not a homophobe, according to Lanny Davis. I never thought he was. In fact, that’s why his extraordinary attack on gay relationships and citizens is so dispiriting. It’s also counter-productive. Imagine if Bush had made a speech or remarks in which he had expressed his own view of the dignity of gay people and their relationships, even while believing that civil marriage should not be granted to them. Wouldn’t that have helped him? But the far right prevents him from saying that, because they believe that gay people are either sick or sinful. In order to win and hold power, he has to cater to homophobes, who have succeeded in obscuring the real Bush. This will hurt him. Note this interesting fact from the USAToday poll:
On domestic issues, Americans are more concerned about education and health care costs than they are about Social Security. They worry more about jobs, the deficit and poverty than they do about taxes, another focus for Bush. Protecting the environment ranks above curtailing lawsuits against doctors, the first major legislative proposal the president plans to pursue this year. Among 18 issues, same-sex marriage – the subject of heated debate in the election – comes in last when Americans are asked to rate their concerns.
Over to Tony Perkins, of the Family Research Council:
“I believe there is no more important issue for the president’s second term than the preservation of marriage.”
Can Bush square that circle? No wonder he wants to put all the burden of resisting the FMA on the Senate.
The Dish 