|
|
September 28, 2006Lame Duck Prexy Still FliesFor a president who is supposed to be crippled by his “increasingly unpopular war” and his dwindling poll numbers, Bush continues to get what he wants. Enough Democrats understand that, NY Times aside, the American people want seriousness - not cartoonish partisanship - when it comes to dealing with terrorists and terrorism. Or, at least they understand it in an election year. No one wants to see Jack Baueresque torture (well, I’m sure some do) but people understand that we cannot fight a war by being “nice” to people who only perceive it as weakness, and who do not hesitate to abuse and mutilate our soldiers, or hide behind innocent children. I’m of two minds about torture, and I bet many Americans are. Our better natures say “no,” our humanity says “no.” But weighed in the balance of thousands of lives…the shoulders go up, and we shrug, lacking wisdom, and hoping to do the best we can. I think in the end…we approve the belly slaps and hope they don’t escalate. War is difficult under the most civilized of circumstances. This is a war unlike any others, and our enemies, un-uniformed, unconcerned with Geneva Conventions, unconcerned (nay, enthusiastic) about collateral damage, will not be defeated by wholly conventional needs. I think we really need to do a better job of defining what is torture, though, and what it is not, really. Waterboarding is torture; I’m against it. Bellyslaps? I don’t think it should come under the same heading. If someone has information that can save thousands of lives, we do need to have methods in place to coerce that information. If someone has a better and more noble way of gathering that information from people who have more than demonstrated their committment to our deaths, I’m all for it, lets hear it. I can only be honest and say I can see both sides of the thing. I’m not thrilled about it, but I think sometimes we walk blind and have to kiss it up to God and pray for the best, trusting that what we get wrong, in good faith, He will make right. And may God have mercy on us all. Ed Morrissey has the best and most informative post I’ve read on this subject. Read it all. Also, read Hugh Hewitt’s interview with Mark Steyn, on his return from Gitmo. Also, the senate just unanimously approved 70Billion for the war effort. It’s election season, and the Democrats need to look “strong” on security - that’s one reason the vote was unanimous. The second reason is that for all the talk about “redeploying,” (and leaked NIE reports) the senate understands that to pull out of Iraq right now would be an incalculable travesty. Related: More on torture - and on how it should be distinguished from milder forms of information coersion, and some thoughtful links here. http://theanchoressonline.com/2006/09/28/lame-duck-prexy-still-flies/trackback/ 13 Responses to “Lame Duck Prexy Still Flies” |
September 28th, 2006 at 9:21 pm
You might be interested in this article by Jonathan Rauch, which I think easily has found the best balance of all. I just wish he had been drafting the legislation. Mind you, it’s not carved in stone, changes can always be made. As Rauch points out so well, what is really lacking is accountability.
http://nationaljournal.com/rauch.htm
September 28th, 2006 at 9:56 pm
very thankful for this fine President…
i believe David Gregory and Andrea Mitchell started some of the ‘lame duck’ expression back in 2005.
do they ever tire of being mistaken?
perhaps it is purely an attempt to sway?
or, are they completely unaware of the error in their ways?
regardless, it seems they continue to underestimate President GW BUSH.
September 28th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
I am totally for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, want to win them, want to punish those guilty for 9/11, want to defeat al Qaeda. . .
but I am not for endorsing torture.
I know that allegations of torture are overblown, but real examples of it definitely occurred. As an American I know we are better than this. Americans are not more virtuous by accident or by mere chance, but by system that took a long time to establish. I can understand why it might be prudent to take the gloves off with a Khalid Mohammed (balancing individual rights with the right to self defense)–but I know that things can quickly spiral out of control like Abu Ghraib.
The Abu Ghraib disaster absolutely fueled the Sunni insurgency and destablized Iraq and, as a result, probably led to the deaths of hundreds of our troops. Sure the night shift was out of hand, but they were allowed to get out of hand and were given direction to do much of what they did. Was the price paid worth any intelligence that was gained there?
With great power comes great responsibility. I hope the President can live up to that.
September 28th, 2006 at 10:25 pm
When Lincoln spoke about the better angels of our nature, he was trying to steer us through our bloodiest conflict as a nation. He had hoped to bind a people back together who were at least related by blood, religion, history or common interest.
When our present enemy shares none of these things, and delights in topping their last barbaric act, I have a hard time getting in touch with my better angel. When 14 animals start singing like birds after being “waterboarded,” I find it easier to think of my children boarding aircraft or my wife crossing bridges and tunnels.
How silly will this hand-wringing sound once a nuke’s been used? Afterwards, consider the poor sod who had a terrorist-connected perp in his grasp but was afraid to “push” too far.
I think I’ll go listen to some Loreena McKennitt to flush my head.
September 28th, 2006 at 10:44 pm
I am troubled by two very different issues here. A, you articulate the first very well - we are dealing with a foe who has shown no indication that they will abide by any of restrictions that this legislation puts in place (on us), nor the Geneva conventions nor anything else save the Qur’an. And when innocents are put at risk, well? For what are we willing to be accountable? It is a difficult decision to face head on. But face it we must, even though it is ever so much more comfortable to second guess the president and those charged with keeping us safe.
The second issue that troubles me here, however, is the interventions of the Congress and the Supremes into the Executive powers of commander in chief. Separation of powers seems to be one of the first casualties of Bush derangement syndrome.
And I am uncomfortable with the idea that rights of citizens are bestowed on terrorists who would like nothing better than to tie us up in knots with our own laws. The warfare is asymetrical, and if we continually level the playing field by fighting with one arm behind our back, I fear the endgame is WE LOSE.
September 29th, 2006 at 9:18 am
Sorry to quote Stan Lee, but it fit.
If we were only talking about waterboarding 14 high level al Qaeda leaders–we would not be having this discussion. Look how quickly “taking the gloves off” spread. Official memos were generated justifying anything short of organ failure and amputation as legitimate coercive force. Donald Rumsfeld ignored the Army Field Manual and greenlighted coercive interrogation techniquest that became widespread in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I understand that sometimes we have to defend ourselves, but I do not want to see us give up our ideals and values out of misplaced fear. The President has his authority–I hope he goes lightly with it.
September 29th, 2006 at 11:47 am
Really? Show me the memos you are refering to. Here’s a list to help you- http://www.nytimes.com/ref/international/24MEMO-GUIDE.html
Rumsfeld’s memo(April 2003) contains nothing that can be characterized as having “greenlighted coercive interrogation techniquest that became widespread in Iraq and Afghanistan…justifying anything short of organ failure and amputation. ” Except by someone trying to mislead the American public. Note the time spent on covering what he calls “The Mutt and Jeff” technique–essentially the “good cop/bad cop” interrogation anyone who has ever seen a cop show on TV is familiar with. Scary stuff! OOOoooo! Right….
Ever hear of Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SEER) Training? That’s the course that American troops go through to prepare with dealing with the possibility of finding themselves in hostile territory. Waterboarding is often used then–a MORE ‘intense’ version that was REJECTED for detaineees. American troops go through tougher programs than we subject detainees to–unless you consider talking to a female ‘torture.’ In that case, we have nothing to talk about. I suspect we don’t.
September 29th, 2006 at 8:39 pm
What you idiots fail to comprehend is that who gets to decide who is and who isn’t an unlawful noncombatant has been left to the Miserable Failure. Not one of you ignorant mouth-breathers could tell me that you’d be pissing your pants in rage if Clinton tried to do the same thing.
September 29th, 2006 at 11:01 pm
That’s interesting. I wonder, if Clinton tried to do the same thing, would some on the left be applauding his humanitarianism in “limiting the scope of torture?”
‘
I hadn’t thought of that til I read Fed Up’s remarks.
September 30th, 2006 at 12:38 am
Oh yes, Bush alone decides everything! By himself. Pay no attention to the army of gov’t lawyers behind the curtain. Miserable Failure? Don’t the Dems have that moniker trademarked for internal use?
GCIII(Third Geneva Convention)
Who GETS protection–
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
“Before the 1970s, the category of unlawful enemy combatant was widely understood and accepted as a critical part of the laws of war. Such individuals do not fight on behalf of sovereign states, have no regular and transparent command structure, do not wear uniforms, do not carry their arms openly and do not obey the laws of war. As a result, they present a particularly dangerous threat to civil society in general and the civilian population in particular. To deter this type of illegitimate, asymmetric warfare, unlawful combatants have historically been denied the rights of prisoners of war and could be severely punished after the most abbreviated of proceedings.”David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey The Washington Times July 11, 2006 (Two of the lawyers behind the curtain.)
What does the Leftist-”street” have to say? Same as always–”What would be the worst for the US? That’s what we want!” But didn’t your mother ever ask you “If all your friends jump off a bridge, does that mean you’re going to do it too?” Five of the SCOTUS Justices apparently never had a mother who did, I guess. We’ll see how they decide if the fundamental issue is ever brought before the Court.
September 30th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
Excuse me?
Listen… you’ll have to pardon me, but from what I’ve read so far, you seem to be claiming to be a Christian.
Now, if I’m misinterpreted that, hey, I’ve made mistakes before, I’m going to make more mistakes before I’m through, but bloody hell, where is your faith?
You do remember that, right? With faith the size of a mustard seed, you can move a frikkin’ *mountain*. And you have to go around thinking it takes torture to win a battle against a bunch of two-bit punk terrorists who got a lucky shot in when America was sleeping?
I mean, forget all that stuff Jesus had to say about loving one’s enemies, I know that few people believe in that any more, more’s the pity… they don’t even know what love *is*, so how could they understand loving one’s enemies?
Just think about how faith, and how doing what’s right, is supposed to give you real power.
Look, I’m sure you can talk the talk as well as anyone, but you might remember a story about two kids. Dad asks them both to work in the vineyard, and one says “sure thing, pop, working the vineyard is a great way to spend an afternoon! I’m fully subservient to your will,because of your wisdom and goodness!” But then he blew off the afternoon fooling around on his gameboy, or whateve it is kids did back then.
The other kid said he wouldn’t go work in the vineyard, but decided he was wrong… he went, and he worked.
You can talk the talk, but God doesn’t care much about that… he wants you to walk the walk, and you know, or ought to know that.
And that means loving people enough to take some chances. That means saying, yeah, we might save some lives with torture - and we might not save any[1]. But are we willing to refuse to torture, because we have faith, and courage? Or will we take the easier path, because we’re scared, and don’t have any faith that there’s power in righteousness?
[1] Torture might work if you know the right question to ask, the right person to ask, and you’re willing to be brutal enough to make the person helpless and begging for release. Most of the time, we don’t know the right questions, or the right people, so they end up torturing at random… meaning they torture innocent people. And they’re led by a man who claims Jesus is his favorite philosopher.
September 30th, 2006 at 11:23 pm
Look “Weirdo,” there was no torture. That’s the whole point. And as long as you’re going to misquote Scripture, it’s “uproot a giant tree,” not move a mountain by Faith that can fill a mustard seed. But you always distort the facts, don’t you? Now you have “innocent” people being tortured at random! Maybe you need to lay off that wacky weed just a bit, or join Al Gore in warning about cigarette smoking being a major contributor to global warming. And to think we came THIS close to having that idiot as President! Did you hear about Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib begging Americans to take them with them when we turned over the facilities to Iraqi control on September 1st? Of course you didn’t! (see “Tortured screams ring out as Iraqis take over Abu Ghraib” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/10/wirq10.xml
“Haleem Aleulami, who was released from the jail last week, three weeks after being arrested in Ramadi for carrying a pistol in his car, said the Americans had treated him better when they ran the jail. He claimed that visits from the International Red Cross staff had dried up and accused local human rights workers of being members of Shia groups who turned a blind eye to problems in the jail…And Khalid Alaani, who was also picked up in Ramadi suspected of involvement in Sunni terrorism, said: “We preferred the Americans. We asked to move with them to Baghdad airport because we knew the treatment would be changed because we know what the Iraqis are. When the Americans left everything changed.”
Guess they miss American “torture,” huh? Why else would they want to come with us? Stockholm Syndrome? If they were still under American control, they’d send in counselors about now to help them through it. And adjust the AC…something else the prisoners haven’t had since Sept. 1…along with TV and your game boys…
October 1st, 2006 at 8:43 pm
But you always distort the facts, don’t you?
I’m sure that you feel you have discerned that about me from a single comment… but it’s not the case.
For example, we know that there was torture in Abu Ghraib, both officially sanctioned, and “off the clock”. The beating death of the Iraqi that Graner posed with certainly counts as torture, correct? Beating a person to death causes pain comparable to incipient death, and even the Bush administration admits that that is torture.
We also know that a prisoner had, as his normal quarters - note, not because he was in special punitive isolation - a room that was a meter wide by two meters long, no light, no windows, no water source, no toilet, and no bedding. This was reported to the ICRC, and please note, this was a detainee considered covered by the Geneva Conventions (hence, the ICRC visit). You might want to check the conventions; that’s not an acceptable set of quarters for a prisoner.
As for conditions getting worse in Abu Ghraib after left (after we were forced to clean up a terrible mess that could have been avoided, if Bush hadn’t claimed that the Geneva Conventions didn’t apply to the war on terror - you can check the Fay report on that, too), what does that have to do with anything?
“Iraqis are being worse!” doesn’t say much; it just means we weren’t as nasty as they are. I’m not concerned about doing “better than the Iraqis”… I’m concerned about doing what’s right.
How about you, Darrel? If you’re good with this Scripture thing, maybe you can help me out. Jesus said something… it was something like “love your friends and hate your enemies”… except… except I’m pretty sure he was complaining about that attitude.
What did he have to say about that?
Do you believe one should follow what this Jesus fellow says? Or at least try to? Be careful; it might set you up for a little inconvenience. But faith can sustain you.