Is This American? By Molly Ivins It is both peculiar and chilling to find oneself discussing the problem of American torture. I have considered support of basic human rights and dignity so much a part of our national identity that this feels as strange as though I'd suddenly become Chinese or found Fidel Castro in the refrigerator. One's first response to the report by the International Red Cross about torture at our prison at Guantanamo is denial. "I don't want to think about it; I don't want to hear about it; we're the good guys, they're the bad guys; shut up. And besides, they attacked us first." But our country has opposed torture since its founding. One of our founding principles is that cruel and unusual punishment is both illegal and wrong. Every year, our State Department issues a report grading other countries on their support for or violations of human rights. The first requirement here is that we look at what we are doing – and not blink, not use euphemisms. Despite the Red Cross' polite language, this is not "tantamount to torture." It's torture. It is not "detainee abuse." It's torture. If they were doing it to you, you would know it was torture. It must be hidden away, because it's happening in Cuba or elsewhere abroad. Yes, it's true, we did sort of know this already. It was clear when the Abu Ghraib scandal broke in Iraq that the infection had come from Guantanamo. The infamous memos by Alberto Gonzales, our next attorney general, and by John Ashcroft's "Justice" Department pretty well laid it out. In a way, Abu Ghraib, as bizarrely sadistic as it was, is easier to understand than this cold, relentless and apparently endless procedure at Gitmo. At least Abu Ghraib took place in the context of war. At Guantanamo, there is no threat to anyone – Americans are not being killed or hurt there. The Red Cross report says, "The construction of such a system, whose stated purpose is the production of intelligence, cannot be considered other than an intentional system of cruel, unusual and degrading treatment, and a form of torture." Our country, the one you and I are responsible for, has imprisoned these "illegal combatants" for three years now. What the hell else do we expect to get out of them? We don't even release their names or say what they're charged with – whether they're Taliban, al Qaeda or just some farmers who happened to get in the way (in Afghanistan, farmers and soldiers are apt to be the same). If this hasn't been established in three years, when will it be? How long are they to be subjected to "humiliating acts, solitary confinement, temperature extremes, use of forced positions"? In the name of Jesus Christ Almighty, why are people representing our government, paid by us, writing filth on the Korans of helpless prisoners? Is this American? Is it Christian? What are our moral values? Where are the clergymen on this? Speak out, speak up. The creepiest aspect of the Red Cross report is the involvement of doctors and psychiatrists in something called "biscuit" teams. Get used to that acronym: It stands for Behavioral Science Consultation Team and will end up in the same category of national shame as Wounded Knee. According to The New York Times, "biscuit" teams are "composed of psychologists and psychological workers who advise the interrogators." Shades of Dr. Mengele. An earlier Red Cross report questioned whether "psychological torture" was taking place. I guess that's what you call sleep deprivation and prolonged exposure to extremely loud noises while shackled to a chair. The beatings reported would not be psychological torture. I pass over the apparently abandoned practice of sexual taunting. The Red Cross also reports a far greater incidence of mental illness caused by stress. If you have neither the imagination nor the empathy to envision yourself in such circumstances, please consider why the senior commanders in the military are so horrified by this. It's very simple. Because, if we do this, if we break international law and the conventions of warfare, then the same thing can be done to American soldiers who are captured abroad. Any country can use exactly the same lame rationale about "enemy combatants" to torture American troops in any kind of conflict. Then we would protest to the Red Cross, of course. I suppose one could argue that we're fighting people who chop off the heads of their prisoners, so there. Since when have we taken up Abu al-Zarqawi as a role model? In the famous hypothetical example, you might consider torture justified if you had a terrorist who knew where a bomb was planted that was about to go off. But three years later? Some people have got to be held accountable for this, and that would include Congress. My question is: What are you going to do about this? It's your country, your money, your government. You own it, you run it, you are the board of directors. They are doing this in your name. The people we elect to public office do what you want them to. Perhaps you should get in touch with them. http://www.alternet.org/story/20654/
I think it is a great article. Making a connection to some of the other threads that 'hot' right now, this is immoral. I also want to point out that Bush claimed his role model was Jesus Christ. That was one of the reasons in 2000 that he won the majority of the muslim vote. Yet his actions seem an affront to the conduct of his supposed role model. Jesus' philosophy was not one of pre-emptive strike, and authorized torture. But of course the left are often seen as the ones opposed to morality. It is very odd.
Well until we start chopping reporters and aid workers heads off, I don't think you can say we've 'lowered our standards to match' our enemies. Lowered them, maybe. To their level, hardly.
I'm glad we can rest easy knowing that our government slaughtered tens of thousands of innocent people and tortured countless others without the aid of a knife. Our enemy chops off heads with a knife and we blow off heads with bombs. Dead is dead, and wrong is wrong. I'd like to think that Americans would know the difference.
So...she is saying it's WRONG to drop the principles that this country was founded and built on whenever it's convenient?? Silly liberal....what do Libs know about values anyway? Buncha aaamoral philandering, hedinistic(thats for YOU Roxran )commie lovers!
Its just ridiculous to claim its the same thing. By your standard the allies in WWII were the same as the Nazis.
I agree its something that should be looked at seriously. I don't agree that 'sleep depravation and loud noises' are the same as bamboo shoots under the fingernails and broken appendages. I don't agree that this is the same as wounded knee and I don't agree that the Geneva Convention applies to non-state actors like Al Queda. Should we be involved in operations like Abu Grab where random people are swept up and then subjected to these actions? No. Should farmers and random afghanis still be held in Guantanamo after three years? I don't think so. Would I authorize the outright torture of a terrorist (as in the example given) who knew where a bomb was planted if I was in the position to do so? Absolutely. Is that antithetical to our historical precedents as a country? No, its not. Does that make us the same as North Korea or Cuba, who kill, torture, and imprison its own population for political reasons? No, it doesn't.
No, Germany actually attacked other countries and WWII was the inevitable response of the invasions. America, despite some things that I would see as unAmerican (japanese internment camps), never resorted to using semantics and legalspeak to justify torture.
No, he said killing innocents by beheading or by bombs is the same thing. The Allies did indeed kill millions of civilians with bombs. Besides, whether attacked first or not is irrelevant to the question of whether torture, beheadings, and bombings are legitimate. And America executed Germans and Japanese soldiers on many occasions in WWII, but that was the most moral of wars, right? It just isn't a black and white issue with a bright dividing line. Its much more complex than that.
They didn't chop their heads off, they shot a missle into their hotel. It was discussed here before. But I willl try and give you a link. http://www.marchforjustice.com/id274.htm Here is another link The story goes on further, but I wasn't trying to say that this was definitely the same as the terrorists chopping off hands or heads, just that the U.S. did kill these journalists. It's not 100% sure that it was on purpose either unlike the terrorists, but I through it out to play devil's advocate, and present that the possibility is there that the U.S. did target the media. The reporter from ABC denies the militaries claims that there was gunfire before the attacks, and he was there at the time.
Yeah well no offense but I just don't believe the military got orders to kill al jezerra reporters. its just a bad comparison. one group captures and executes, and videos so we know they did this, and there is a 'report' that we may have targeted reporters (although there was a battle for the city going on at the time).
After they were attacked first. Germany was an obvious threat that needed to be dealt with, Iraq was not. Iraq hadn't attacked anyone in over a decade, there was no credible evidence of Iraq having WMDs, and by all reputable accounts, Iraq was not a threat and could not have become one for at least a decade after the sanctions were lifted. That makes our unjustified invasion of Iraq more analogous to terrorists killing civilians than to the completely justified actions in WWII. Torture and beheadings are NEVER legitimate. Bombings would have been legitimate if we had a reasonable justification for war, but since the war was based on exaggerations, mistaken "intelligence," or outright lies, the bombings were NOT justified in the least.
What? The legitimacy of killing civilians depends on what started the conflict? Are you sure you want to defend that? I might...but somehow I don't think you do. Your side usually argues AGAINST ends justify the means I think, and if it DOES then what's the difference between killing civilians (ie INNOCENTS) and murderers? Geez talk about reversed priorities. So we could have dropped an atom bomb on bagdad in the first persian gulf war? And I'm not conceeding in the least that there was no reasonable justification of the war, btw. Its just silly for you to tie the two together. By that standard you're saying its ok to kill civilians en masse if it is a 'just war' but not to torture a combatant. That's screwed up.
Had they successfully leveled the The Empire State Building with a non-uniformed mercenaries we might have.
Like I said, it definitely isn't conclusive that the military ordered this. But this isn't the first attack on Al Jazeera by the U.S. military. It 'accidentally' happened in Aghanistan as well. So it is possible that the U.S. accidentally attacked Al Jazeera on two different occasions, and they have no witnesses to back their version of events in Iraq, and other witnesses back the version of those who were attacked. I think circumstances and witnesses seem to go against what the military is saying. But there is nothing conclusive. Of course the army has never 'accidentally' bombed Fox News headquarters.
