Columnist Andrew Sullivan is at it Again [Updated]
I guess the release of the Al-Quaeda torture manual has him scrambling again to divert the debate away from real torture and back to his primary focus, attacking the United States. But since he has no new material here (he's been blogging for years on the subject, and there wasn't much material to start with; US approved torture has been alleged in very few cases, and never proven) he has to make up some evidence. His new tactic is a frequent standby of those with very weak arguments: guilt by association.
Apparently, since the Nazis used the phrase "Verschärfte Vernehmung", which one can translate as "enhanced interrogation techniques" (although literally "sharpened interrogations"), and Bush also used the term "enhanced interrogation techniques", we are doing the same thing the Nazis did, therefore, we are bad like the Nazis.
I'm not joking. Read his post yourself. This logic is so wretchedly inane, so incredibly empty, that it's only purpose is as a desperate smokescreen, lest people start forgetting about US abuses and actually notice the real tortures going on in the rest of the world.
Just so there's no mistaking here: I am against any kind of torture in all circumstances. The few cases where it might be the only route to save lives (like certain scenes from the TV series "24") I would consider at the time only if/when I saw a situation like that actually occur. But to my knowledge, that has never actually occured in the history of the US.
And unlike Mr. Sullivan, I actually have some experience in this matter. I am a trained interrogator (it was a previous military specialty of mine). I have personally interrogated hundreds of Iraqis, both willing and unwilling to talk (most willing). I have never once used or seen anything resembling torture in any way. On one occasion, an interpreter who was working with another interrogator, hit a prisoner one time (and not very hard). He was fired immediately.
Now, it's true that some abuses have occured under US leadership. Most people (including Mr. Sullivan) like to point to Abu Gharayb. But Abu Gharayb had nothing to do with interrogations! The abusers, who were prosecuted for it, were not CIA or military intelligence, but a bunch of low-ranking national guard soldiers acting like idiots. Things like waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and stress positions have also been alleged to be used by the CIA, but never proven. But even if true, if we are going to have a productive debate on the subject, we have to maintain some level of porportionality. Comparing those alleged CIA techniques to insurgent tortures such as eye gouging, or drilling holes in the body is like comparing shoplifting to serial murder. Personally, I would like to prosecute both offenses when they occur. But where I put the majority of my attention shows where my priorities lie. I guess my priorities are very different from Mr. Sullivan's, and the owners of the main stream media at large, judging by how much they obsessed over Abu Gharayb back in 2004.
Incredibly, at the very end of the long post where continually compares the US to the Nazis, he then dishonestly tries to deny what we were just reading. In a "CYA" attempt to deflect potential objections: Critics will no doubt say I am accusing the Bush administration of being Hitler. I'm not. There is no comparison between the political system in Germany in 1937 and the U.S. in 2007. What I am reporting is a simple empirical fact: the interrogation methods approved and defended by this president are not new. Many have been used in the past. The very phrase used by the president to describe torture-that-isn't-somehow-torture - "enhanced interrogation techniques" - is a term originally coined by the Nazis.
The problem is none of those empirical facts, as you carefully state them here, is any kind of war crime in and of itself. You still have to prove something beyond guilt by association, which you failed to do. The only thing you succeeded in is, once again, smearing the United States Government and feeding your enormous ego.
Update at 6/1/2007 11:35:00 AM:
Dave Price at "Dean's World" says the same thing I do, although much more effectively:the invocation of an emotional trigger like Nazism is clearly intended to convey something sinister like “BUSH=HITLER” without actually being so gauche as to say it out loud, because without that stigma of association the post really says nothing at all, as one quickly realizes with a little reflection.
11 comments:
How is the logic tortured? Yours is the second blog entry I've read saying that.
I'm not asking do you agree or disagree with his conclusions, but specifically, how are they illogical?
He says that the Nazi term and our term are similar. Fair enough, maybe it has significance maybe it doesn't. But it's not illogical to make the comparison.
He also says that Nazis approved the use of some of the techniques the Bush administration has approved. Whether they are right or wrong to do so is another argument, but it is hardly illogical to compare the tactics used.
Ditto with the fact that at first, there was a apparently a thorough effort to conduct oversight, use only under special circumstances, etc., the same kinds of things we've heard Rumsfeld say. So where's the fallacy?
I can understand an argument along the lines of: The Nazis also used airplanes and tanks in WWII, so do we, big deal, just because we do it and the Nazis did it isn't an automatic indictment against a given practice. That is at least a coherent argument; that you understand the comparisons but don't agree with his conclusion.
But saying that Andrew Sullivan has twisted logic because he draws conclusions from some of these comparisons is beyond me.
You're the one who has made an illogical conclusion. Andrew simply states that the Bush administration approved techniques which carried a sentence of death before an international court in 1948. What you are saying is essentially that al Quaeda's torture techniques are worse than ours, so it's all okay. Yes, in a moral dick measuring contest between the U.S. and al Qaeda, America would be more able to satisfy. However, that does not exonerate the Bush administration from approving torture. Period. This would be equivalent to saying during a hypothetical rape trial that because convicted perpetrator A killed his victim, accused B should be acquitted because his victim was allowed to live.
It's an interesting deflection - look at al Quada, we are only doing a fraction of their torturing. But do we really want to be comparing ourselves to al Quada?
The fact that al Quada commits acts of torture is not new. They are sick fuckers for whom the ends justify the means. What's news is that we torture. That we are authorizing the same techniques Nazi's used and then were found to be war criminals and executed for. What happened at Abu Ghraib might be dismissed as deeds of a few bad apples, but not our government's codifying of similar procedures. If we ever catch the people who gouge out eyes gouging or drilling holes in knees, you can be sure that they will end up on gallows. Can we say that those who waterboard will receive proportional punishment?
The double standard is so complete and so impossible to defend, that every time I bring it up, people change the subject and instead accuse me of trying to whitewash any crimes the US has committed. I haven't done that at all. Read the post again:"Personally, I would like to prosecute both offenses when they occur. But where I put the majority of my attention shows where my priorities lie. I guess my priorities are very different from Mr. Sullivan's".
When I read the 1000th article on waterboarding, while several of the major media outlets totally ignore the Al-Qaeda torture house, then something must be dreadfully wrong with our priorities.
This is especially true when there is at the moment, very little evidence that any waterboarding, for example, has ever occured. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are no photos, tape, or video. The only evidence so are are a couple of terrorists (who have little credibility), and a few "anonymous sources" who leak to newspapers but always refuse to identify themselves. When we get some real evidence, I'll definitely pay more attention. But even then, I would still consider burning, maiming, flogging, and removing limbs to be far more of an affront to justice.
I believe no one is beyond accountability, especially when they hold positions of great responsibility - and this includes the media.
I'm not sure what double standard you refer to, but I think you mean that the media ignores Al Qaeda's torture and that focus on American misbehavior in some way exposes an anti-American/anti-Bush "liberal bias."
I'm not sure what you believe about America, but the America I believe in is different from Al Qaeda and the rest of the terrorists for precisely that reason. We KNOW Al Qaeda commits torture and the worst acts of terror against human beings. That's why we are fighting them around the world!! No sane, freedom-loving individual could defend the atrocities committed by Al Qaeda. But this has nothing to do with us. The way we keep our own house in order has nothing to do with how terrorists keep theirs. They don't have a Constitution; we do. They don't have a Bill of Rights; we do. They don't have an Emancipation Proclamation; we do. They don't have a Civil Rights Act; we do. They don't have the Geneva Convention; we do. Of course, the list goes on and on.
Remind yourself of our values - the values that we all agree upon - and don't intellectually debase yourself by feeling the need to defend an indefensible position. Yes, whether or not something is "torture" is a slippery slope. Yes, this obscures whether or not torture has occured. That doesn't matter. If we are arguing about what is and isn't torture, it's already too late.
We're Americans. We don't torture. Period.
To Wick: I am, very obviously referring to the double standard that Mr. Sullivan (and the media as a whole) show when reporting the subject of torture. It's pretty hard to argue against it. In fact, while you give reasons for it, you don't deny the discrepency.
I'm not sure what you mean by "don't intellectually debase yourself by feeling the need to defend an indefensible position" since I haven't defended torture, or anyone involved. I just asked for some real evidence.
Finally, you might know how evil Al-Qaeda is; but by looking at the rest of the world (who regularly depend on our media) I'm not so sure they do. I try to keep comments short, so I'll just point to one example: In a recent poll, an astounding 40% of US muslims believe that Arabs were not involved in the 9/11 attacks. Forty percent! I think we need much more balanced education if we are going to ever win the propaganda war being waged against us.
Well, it's been posted before, but I'll post it again. Mr. Sullivan has simply pointed out certain policy stances that the Bush administration has made that resemble policies held by the Gestapo. Does that mean "Bush=Hitler"? No. Does it mean we're "bad" like Nazis? No. Does it mean that the policies in question resemble policies held by the Gestapo? Yes, it does, and when our policies regarding torture resemble those of the Gestapo, that should be pause for consideration. It has nothing to do with the amount of actual torturing being done. It's about what our President has declared as policy.
You imply that Mr. Sullivan's real motive is to distract people from the "real torture" occurring overseas. I wonder how you divined this? To me, Mr. Sullivan's motivation seems to be pointing out dangerous policies that our own government has adopted. Are we not allowed to criticize our government's policies until the rest of the world is perfect? That seems ridiculous. I have far more power to change the policies of the U.S. executive branch (by voting) than I do to stop torture in Darfur.
I especially resent the implication that criticizing the executive branch is equal to "attacking America". Let me make this perfectly clear: if I believed that the Bush administration represented the values of the United States of America, I'd leave immediately. I criticize Bush because I love America, and I want to take it back from the neo-cons who have tried to pervert our Constitution and our civic life.
Have a nice day,
Robert McLendon, dedicated rationalist
bapudi: You imply that Mr. Sullivan's real motive is to distract people from the "real torture" occurring overseas. I wonder how you divined this?
I can't read his mind, but can only comment on what he writes. If you do a google search right now of the word "torture" on his web site you come up with 646 hits, and looking through them its very difficult to find even one that isn't directed toward the United States, its military, or its leaders.
Even when he does criticize Al Qaeda, he of course mentions the US and even throws in an well-worn photo of Abu Ghraib for good measure.
To me, Mr. Sullivan's motivation seems to be pointing out dangerous policies that our own government has adopted.
I am not against that, but there should be some kind of balance here; don't you think there should be at least a little weighing of priorities based on actual harm?
In any case, your argument would have more weight if Mr. Sullivan was an American, but he is a British national (at least, if he has become a US citizen, he hasn't publicized it).
Sounds to me like JR is trying very hard to justify US torture. He talks about balance, how Sullivan is not an American, how many hits "torture" gets on his web site, photos of Abu Ghraib, and so on. That's all irrelevant.
The US Patent Office rejects claims of perpetual motion machines without discussion - they are impossible. We can reject JR's claims about how torture is admissible without getting into them for the same reason - torture is wrong no matter what, no matter who else does it, no matter why we do it, and so on.
To Steve:
I absolutely agree that torture is wrong, no matter who does it. I defy you to show me where I ever said otherwise, or tried to "justify it", as you put it.
Funny thing is, to some people (like yourself, presumably) Al Qaeda torture somehow seems less wrong than US torture. This is especially strange when you consider the actual techniques being used...
You say Abu Gharayb had nothing to do with interrogations
* Doughlas Jehl and Neil A. Lewis, "U.S. Disputed Protected Status of Iraq Inmates," New York Times, May 23, 2004
"Presented last fall with a detailed catalog of abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, the American military responded on Dec. 24 with a confidential letter asserting that many Iraqi prisoners were not entitled to the full protections of the Geneva Conventions. .... [and] emphasized the 'military necessity' of isolating some inmates at the prison for interrogation because of their 'significant intelligence value,' and said that prisoners held as security risks could legally be treated differently from prisoners of war or ordinary criminals."
R. Jeffrey Smith reports in the May 21, 2004, Washington Post that, on October 12, 2003, "Shortly before the physical abuses of Iraqis were photographed in Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad last year," Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez "signed a classified memorandum explicitly calling for interrogators to assume control over the 'lighting, heating . . . food, clothing, and shelter' of those being questioned there ... [and] called for intelligence officials at the prison to work more closely with the military police guarding the detainees to 'manipulate an internee's emotions and weaknesses.'"
"This memo and the deliberations that preceded it were completely shrouded from public view at the time
Army officers in the field were complaining in the summer of 2003 that they had received no useful intelligence back from the prison."
# August 18, 2003: memo signed by "Pentagon's Joint Staff -- acting on a request from Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and his top intelligence aide, Stephen A. Cambone -- ordered Army Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller to conduct an inspection" at Abu Ghraib and "left behind his own list of interrogation techniques."
# "The military officials said the Army captain memorialized it in a wall posting that said the use of long-term isolation, 'working dogs,' sleep disruption, 'environmental manipulation' and the use of forced 'stress positions' were acceptable, but only if they were approved by Sanchez on a case-by-case basis
You say
Things like waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and stress positions have also been alleged to be used by the CIA, but never proven.
As you can see from the above memo both sleep deprivation and stress positions were acknowledged and in
Feb of 2008 the CIA admitted to using Waterboarding and the huge debate was if it was torture or not??
Back in the Day after that one big war against the Nazis your CIA had a little thing they called Project Paperclip where they brought over all the Nazi scientists and housed them and put them to work for us some of those "scientists" were war criminals responsible for unknown tortures.
They learned from the masters and they learned well.
Post a Comment