I guess I prompted some emails from those who disagree with the Bush policy on abusive and degrading treatment of detainees. Here’s an email that takes a different view:
Sorry to hear that emails are running in favor of torture. Count me on the opposing side. I am in favor of the war in Iraq. I can reluctantly concede the necessity to risk our young people’s lives in our defense. But I cannot think that it is right for us to ask that they sacrifice their souls. Forget about what the torture does to the detainees. I cannot accept what it does to us. These incidents will be the things that haunt these soldiers forever.
And another pertinent question:
Would even one person who currently defends such treatment continue defending it, if it were being inflicted on Americans?
Since, according to the Schmidt report, the incidents and techniques cited are now part of the field manual and cover even Geneva-protected POWs, then this becomes not an academic question. But my question is a more simple one: if you were shocked by the images from Abu Ghraib, why are you not shocked by the evidence from Gitmo? In some ways, Gitmo is worse – because the policies charted by the Bush administration which migrated to Abu Graib were developed and practised by professionals under the strictest supervision. They do not even have the excuse of being un-trained, overwhelmed and in a war-zone. Meantime, it’s worth asking Don Rumsfeld directly at his next press conference: could he elucidate the practice or “pouring water” over an inmate’s head “regularly”? What was it designed to do? How is it different from the “water-boarding” practised by the French in Algeria? Does he believe, as the Schmidt report asserts, that it is “humane” treatment? Is it now legal for U.S. interrogators to do such a thing? The report is somewhat vague. Rumsfeld should clarify.
The Dish 