As progressives wonder at how best to direct—and revive—the struggle to return America to its basic values, a dizzying number of worthy causes, coalitions and strategies present themselves. But one immediate issue must be engaged: America has become a country that tortures its prisoners. The mainstream media uses the word “torture” to describe those (hundreds of) documented cases of “isolated”… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (31)Page 1 of 1 pagesDoes the International Red Cross calling something “tantamount to torture” make it so? This article is worthless, like a lot of others on this website. All it does is repeat others’ accusations without alleging any type conduct to back up the claims.
Posted by Ted on Dec 7, 2004 at 12:02 PM Is beheading considered torture? Or is that an acceptable practice to uhm extract information from Americans and other forces in Iraq. Talk about selective memory. They behead people and what does the liberal’s do about it? Compalin complain and moan about TERRIORISTS being abused . I guess beheading is a beeter form of torture to you libs.
Posted by Robin on Dec 7, 2004 at 2:27 PM Filibuster!!!!!!!! Filibuster!!!!!!! Filibuster!!!!!!!
I can’t believe how torture is being condoned by so many heartless assholes!!
The precendent to degrade suspects extends beyond head-chopping terrorists, it affects our own honor and dignity, and all the gov’ts the world over will think they can legally torture people too.
Posted by pick of the litter on Dec 7, 2004 at 3:56 PM Ooops, that is “precedent”, as in making an example a habitual offense, justifying torture because so-and-so did it before
Posted by pick of the litter on Dec 7, 2004 at 4:00 PM my bad.....You are so right, please instead of humiliating me, and oh say letting me live, please spare me tne the shame and oh just cut my head off. Then I won’t have to live with the shame of being embarrased I guess.
Posted by Robin on Dec 7, 2004 at 4:32 PM Myopic-minded Bushies still don’t get it:
If the U.S. tells the Geneva Conventions articles on proper prisoner treatment to go fuck themselves, then in turn other countries that capture our soldiers will tell Geneva to take a hike, too! Translation: We fuck with foreign prisoners, the countries of those prisoners will fuck with ourselves if the opportunity presented itself.
And if you’ll go back and check, you’ll see the beheadings in Iraq started AFTER the U.S. prisoner-abuse was exposed. Again, we fuck with them, they’ll fuck with us. Simple as that. And you can’t point the finger at anyone but the U.S. for setting this precedent. Of course, our soldiers will suffer the consequences, but I don’t expect Bushies to give a hoot. After all, they’ve so generously chosen not to take their little boy king to task for lying about a war that’s getting them killed and maimed on a daily basis. Just goes to show what deficit-contributing tax cuts and bigoted policy agendas will buy from these “moral” Americans.
Cheers.
Posted by Kevin Collins on Dec 7, 2004 at 8:24 PM When history looks back at this period of time people are gonna ask “What the fuck were they thinking?”. We are torturing people and then finding justification for it. We are lying about why we need to invade other countries. We are taking away people’s rights in the name of Patriotism.
Please. Step away from the cooler and pour out the fascist kool-aid. It’s not too late.
Posted by Mattdog on Dec 7, 2004 at 9:42 PM Ted, if all these articles are worthless,why do you read them?And I’ve read a lot of your postings,and all you seem to do is repeat the propaganda fed to you by the ‘bushies’ without backing it up with any facts.
Posted by mike on Dec 8, 2004 at 12:37 AM And by the way,the real scandal isn’t so much that our soldiers abused/tortured the prisoners in their charge,but that they ENJOYED it.It was FUN.How can we claim any moral superiority when we condone this type of behavior?
Posted by mkie on Dec 8, 2004 at 1:07 AM You people who think that American troops behaving like beasts (under orders or on their own) is somehow OK as long as we’re not as bad as our enemies, what exactly do you believe in as the basis for your patriotism? Is it all a matter of rooting for the home team? Is it just “I live here so whatever my side does is acceptable”? Why don’t you want the side you’re on to actually stand for something better in the world than beating the shit out of an opponent? Did 9/11 entirely scramble any sense of right or wrong in you, as long as we win and trounce our foes? What the hell is this addiction to the lowest common denominator?? You alway say that America is the best country in the world, you should push it to act like it is, instead of reducing loyalty-to-country down to the level of who can win the brawl.
Posted by Kuya on Dec 8, 2004 at 8:01 AM I must admit to having a weakness for conspiracy theories, but do some of you get the feeling that Ted and Robin are working for some Republican organization whose collective goal is just to fuck with us? I mean, they’ve got the cash to burn on entertainment.
Posted by rocco on Dec 9, 2004 at 7:18 AM Last I heard the only “torture” going on at Gitmo was sleep deprevation, prolonged exposure to light, and making the inmates listen to loud non-stop music. I consider these extraction tactics, I haven’t seen one case of actual brutality out of Gitmo.
As for the Geneva Convention no country follows it they don’t need motivation to do something they already do. Although I believe it’s up to America to abide by it. Most of the time.
Posted by giantsox on Dec 9, 2004 at 1:44 PM This article is just plain sloppy. The author mentions “the pervasive use of torture at Guantánamo’s Camp X-Ray” but doesn’t cite any evidence other than the International Red Cross’s claim that the poor prisoners are being subjected to “‘refined and repressive’ methods ‘tantamount to torture.’” But this means nothing because he fails to point out the Red Cross’s factual allegations.
This conveniently leaves out a pretty relevant fact: that the Red Cross’s accusations were based on “humiliating acts, solitary confinement, temperature extremes, use of forced positions.” Maybe I’m just a heartless right-wing barbarian, but I’d say that assuming “the pervasive use of torture” from these kind of allegations is far-fetched at best. That’s not torture, it’s called hazing.
Posted by Ted on Dec 9, 2004 at 6:04 PM Hazing??? Extraction tactics???What other wimpy descriptions can you all come up with to describe what is nothing more than torture?Whether its forced positions or bamboo shoots under your fingernails,it still amounts to the same thing.Face up to it,if we condone these actions, we are no better than what we claim to be fighting.
Posted by mike on Dec 9, 2004 at 7:48 PM Rocco,I don’t think it’s a conspiracy,I just think that Ted and Robin aren’t capable of thinking beyond what they are told by the mainstream media,and all the facts and truth aren’t going to make them think.It scares them too much.
Posted by mike on Dec 9, 2004 at 7:58 PM Exactly, mike, no better than what we claim to be fighting unless we adhere to a higher standard. The US constantly spouts off about the rule of law, citing this convention and that treaty, forever claiming the moral high ground. Well, good, that’s what I want, is for my country to actually hold the moral high ground. And when it doesn’t live up to what it claims to, I get angry. The very existence of Camp X-Ray angers me, Abu Ghraib as well, the abuses in Afghanistan as well, the commissioning of “info extraction” (torture) by Saudis and Jordanians as well. Freakshow violence by the enemy also angers me, but I want our people held to the higher standard, I identify with them and my taxes pay for them. Bush is big on “belief”, he wants us all to believe in his cause and his tactics. OK, so give me something real to believe in. Order the troops to adhere to the Geneva Conventions and the other devices that attempt to moderate war’s horror, which, by the way, are also designed to protect American POWs from abuse. If those orders are disobeyed, punish the perpetrators. Simple.
What was it that Bush Sr. said back in ‘91..? “Good or evil, right or wrong” Easy to say, let’s see it implimented. Would be lose the war if it was? I doubt it.
Posted by Kuya on Dec 9, 2004 at 8:25 PM Mike and Kuya, do you really think the prisoners in Gitmo are too good to be humiliated, put in solitarty confinement, ect. if it can lead to the capture of people who are plotting another 9/11? Do you really think making them sweat and hold “uncomfortable positions” in the name of preventing future attacks makes us no better than people who killed 3,000 civilians and would kill every last one of us if they could?
Kuya, what’s your gripe with Camp X-Ray? Would you prefer that we left its inhabitants in Afghanistan? Get real. The fact that the International Red Cross breached its longstanding policy of confidentiality to take a shot at the U.S. over this non-issue shows what a sad state of affairs that organization is in.
By the way, Kuya, the Geneva Convention’s protections don’t apply to the killers who are rightfully rotting in Gitmo. They only apply to uniformed soldiers, which these scumbags were not. Fuck em.
Posted by Ted on Dec 9, 2004 at 9:50 PM don’t be too sure of anything, mike. There is more than one reality these days . . .
But in case you’re right, and people such as good Ted are expressing their opinions of their own volition, I suggest we listen. Perhaps he’s got a point. Causing more pain and suffering to a people who have suffered their whole lives, in a manner that suburbans can scarcely fathom, may just be the ticket to extracting random information that may or may not lead to anything, and may not be - regardless of your moral or religious leaning - as irrational as it sounds. It also may be wholly practical and not kin to the kind of Old Testament vengeance that it mirrors. Republicans are usually very calculating and logical. They definitely would have factored into their plan any sort of collective Muslim outrage and subsequent retribution from a population with nothing to lose and a 7th century worldview of the afterlife. Why let something like international agreements which create bonds between economic interests get in the way of pure rationality? That’s not the Bobby Bowden way to win in the 4th quarter, my friends.I still think they’re on the take.
Posted by rocco on Dec 10, 2004 at 2:55 AM We’re adding fuel to the fire, violating our own institutions, alienating allies, inspiring future generations to take on the “Great Satan”. Every time we thumb our nose at civilized standards we’ve said are perennial, holding others accountable while doing what we please in the name of expediency or a “fuck em” attitude, we feed the enemy. No one wants to scuttle al-Qaeda more than me, I consider them to be a thoroughly dangerous movement, and the fact is, they’re catching on. There are reasons for this. Travel in Asia, read publications from abroad, check out what’s taking place around the world. And if you don’t want to give a damn about foreign opinions, take into account the strategic nature of places that are rightly considered vital to US interests and where the al-Qaeda message is becoming romanticized. We better start thinking in terms of decades and generations, because you can be sure that they are.
Posted by Kuya on Dec 10, 2004 at 4:02 AM Why would the Red Cross breach its policy of confidentiality to “take a shot at the US”?They don’t stand to gain anything by it,and do stand to lose a lot of credibility if they’re wrong.Maybe they’re trully alarmed by what they’re witnessing over there.After all,they’re there,in the middle of it,while we’re here,with some of us ‘dissin’ them.Maybe we should listen to the people who are in the fire.
Posted by mike on Dec 10, 2004 at 9:20 AM Also,given the decentralised nature of guerrilla warfare,the chances of any of the POW’s we’re holding over there,(and they are POW’s,whether they wear uniforms or not,and are covered by the Geneva Convention.)having any information that could help prevent another 9/11 is essentially non-existent.Make no mistake,if another 9/11 is being planned,none of these prisoners are going to know about it.Take a good look at the pictures from Abu Ghraib,those prisoners are being abused for the sheer pleasure of it.And the soldiers who are in charge of these prison camps are’nt even on the front lines being shot at.I could maybe understand it if they were in constant danger,but they’ve got relatively safe duties behind the front lines.So to sit here a half a world away,safe and sound,and say they’re scumbags who deserve to be abused,tortured,lets just call it what it is,is an opinion that I don’t understand.How can you justify it?How can you rationalise it?
Posted by mike on Dec 10, 2004 at 11:33 AM When I was in the service I was always trained that the Geneva Convention does NOT apply to a non uniformed military personnel. As a soldier when you take a prisoner you treat them according to the standard of the GC and your command makes the decision on how to deal with it afterwards. As far as Abu-Ghraib, it’s a small Army and I’m willing to bet hearing about your friends dying at the “front-line” would be enough to anger anyone to this point, not that I’m condoning it.
But the rules everyone wants us to play by merely handcuffs our soldiers. The enemy knows these rules and exploits them. It’s very similar to how the U.S. defeated the English in the revolutionary war. Bin Laden refers to us as the “paper tiger” because we have so much power but lack the conviction to use it. I don’t know when people will understand that we are not fighting a conventional war we can not use conventional tactics or we will lose. It’s very easy to take the moral high road from a keyboard and treat these people who pass themselves off as civilians to kill you and then get blamed when you react. This is just my opinion though.As far as the Geneva Convention goes NO country we have had a police action or war against ever follows it. This doesn’t give us a blanket pass to do it but Camp X-ray is not the reason for they’re torturing soldiers and civilians they have been doing it long before.
Posted by giantsox on Dec 10, 2004 at 1:57 PM I can only speak for myself, but having said that I do think that most of us who are so critical of current US actions still honor the troops in general. Especially since we also have friends and family caught up in the fray. Obviously, they deserve respect for putting up with crap conditions and the knowledge that they could be in a fight to the death any minute, all the while trying to carry on and hang tough. They have to trust their political and military leaders to make the right decisions, hoping they’ll be ordered into action for the right reasons and backed up once they’re on the front lines (side note: one big irritation I had with Kerry was his voting for the Iraq invasion but against the funding to support them once they were into it; I think the reverse pattern would have been more like it). It is true that torture is rampant the world over, and, speaking cold-bloodedly, there is truly a level of pain and mental disruption that will eventually break anyone down if you want to know what they have to tell, but I simply don’t want our guys to use that tactic. We don’t need to become what we hate. And it’s not unpatriotic or a dis to the men and women in uniform to pointedly criticize wrong policy, or objectionable actions that aren’t “official” policy (e.g. abuse of prisoners). I simply hope that can be understood, that opposition to policy or outrage in response to abusive tactics does not imply a brush-off of the troops. I realize some of the more strident talking-heads on the tube would try to equate it that way, but they’re just about as wrong as they can be.
Posted by Kuya on Dec 10, 2004 at 9:28 PM I totally agree with you Kuya that you can question policy and still support the troops, but sleep deperavation is not torture. If it were I’d have the red cross at my home every night my infant daughter is going to wake me up. If you’re a parent I’m sure you’ve gone through sleep deprivation to. So I can excuse this very humane way of breaking people to talk. Hell, I could also have my commanders labeled as torturers (I don’t know if that’s an actual word or not) when I was in the service. Some times I’d go almost 48 straight hours with no sleep. I just can’t equate a beheading to sleep dep. That’s why I have no problem with Camp X-ray. Sure it sucks to be the prisoners but they weren’t exactly choir boys to be put in that position now were they.
Posted by giantsox on Dec 11, 2004 at 5:55 PM True, some are highly dangerous, and their atrocities are in a league far beyond sleep dep. To see whether sleep dep is acceptable or not, I’d look at the GenCon-related cases that have occured thus far. If US tactics such as sleep dep violate standards that have already been set (I don’t know if they do or not, this would have to be researched), they should discontinue. If other test-cases of the tactic have found it to be acceptable, so be it. If the question hasn’t arisen before, maybe the US will be the first test case at the conclusion of all this. But once the standard is defined, I want US tactics to remain within them. I don’t think we’ll lose the war thereby.
Posted by Kuya on Dec 12, 2004 at 12:54 AM Flexibility to respond to an enemy’s tactic is what wins wars, not technology or even manpower. The main purpose of a war is to achieve a political victory by killing people. Instituting more rules based on morality(which is kind of ironic when your main goal is to kill) handicaps the soldiers. In my opinion they’re the ones getting shot at as long as innocent casualties are kept relatively low(they’re gonna happen no matter how “smart” our bombs are) I say leave them alone. It’s very easy for us to chastise the methods used when we’re not in harm’s way. When it comes to sleep deprivation I just don’t see it as bad enough to waste the time on studying what negative effects it has on people who don’t even care about being humane. That is just my personal feeling though.
Posted by giantsox on Dec 12, 2004 at 1:40 PM I see your point about flexibility of response. However, my concern has more to do with aligning our actions with our lofty rhetoric, as well as the standards we enforce upon others. Of course I’m not getting shot at, the perspective of being at the front lines is outside my experience, admittedly. It’s just hard to swallow when all this “good v. evil” rhetoric is repeated over and over. It’s damn galling, concern for the troops notwithstanding. Such a propagandist’s trick. If the strongest country on Earth can do what it pleases, then there really is no standard (not really talking about sleep dep in specific here, of course).
Forgive the emotion-based response, there seems to be a lot of that going around these days. But having said that, I do believe that adherence to international standards and a determination to use our might to “leave it better than we found it” is eminently practical in the long run, not mere philosophizing.
Posted by Kuya on Dec 12, 2004 at 11:55 PM Kuya-
Although I may not totally agree with you on eveything, I do respect your opinion and thank you for staying away from personal insults. I think open debate is a great thing. Your passion for what you believe is very admirable and based on what you’ve researched as opposed to spitting out whatever a talking head tells you. I do want to leave Iraq better than we found it, but this is a time of war, and getting to that point is hard when your constantly choosing the moral high road. I can condone Camp X-ray but not Abu Grahib, that is crossing the line. Hell that’s so far beyond it, you can’t even see the line.
Posted by giantsox on Dec 13, 2004 at 11:36 AM Gracias. :-) I get weary of reading insults as well. These discussion threads are generally interesting and sometimes informative, but they sure do attract some irritable characters! Catch you next debate.
Posted by Kuya on Dec 13, 2004 at 9:23 PM An interesting on-point article:
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_14414.shtml
Posted by Matt Harris on Dec 14, 2004 at 2:39 PM To Ted, who asks: “Does the International Red Cross calling something “tantamount to torture” make it so?”
1) look up ‘tantamount’ in the dictionary.
2) there’s a lot of documentation to back up their words.Also, Ted, re: “doesn’t cite any evidence...”
try the list of references that is now 20 pages long, at: http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/And, Ted, re: “the Geneva Convention’s protections don’t apply to the killers who are rightfully rotting in Gitmo. They only apply to uniformed soldiers, which these scumbags were not. Fuck em.”
This is exactly the issue the original article on Alberto Gonzales is about; it is this man, the ‘Torture Lawyer’, who invented the legal fiction of ‘illegal enemy combatant’, a term which doesn’t appear in the Geneva Conventions. We know that many of the un-uniformed prisoners ("rightfully rotting in Gitmo") were wrongly arrested in the first place; check out the stories from the few who have already been released, now in Britain or Egypt. CBS 60-Minutes ran a story of an American soldier who was beat up in Gitmo; your belief that torture is not being performed is simply un-informed self-delusion. You know your denials of abuse are false.
Posted by Lee D on Dec 28, 2004 at 12:28 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by James Schamus
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2004 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
