"I just slapped myself. I'm torturing myself right now. That's torture according to these people." —Rush Limbaugh
"If somebody can go through water-boarding for 183 times, 6 times a day .... it means you’re not afraid of it, it means it’s not torture. If you’ve found a way to withstand it, it can’t possibly be torture." —Rush Limbaugh
"The idea that torture doesn't work — that's been put out from John McCain on down — You know, for the longest time McCain said torture doesn't work then he admitted in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention last summer that he was broken by North Vietnamese. So what are we to think here?" —Rush Limbaugh
Seems pretty self-refuting to me. It's A: Not torture. B. Even if it is torture, it isn't because the guy withstood 183 waterboardings in a single month, and C. It is torture, but torture works!
Rush Limbaugh is the very definition of intellectual dishonesty and rank partisanship. How anybody can take him seriously about anything is beyond me.
As for the US, Obama has a lot of work to do to rehabilitate the country in the eyes of the world. Yes, the US tortured people, No, there was no ticking bomb, and Yes, they did so specifically because they wanted to find/create a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda where there wasn't one.
Its about as disgusting as it gets, and I believe clearly meets the level of war crimes - crimes committed by the highest ranking members of the Bush administration.
How ironic then that the GOP, the very people who pilloried Clinton for lying about a blow-job in the Oval office and screamed about 'the rule of law' would subsequently engage in criminal acts orders of magnitude worse and claim legal cover for doing so.
I smell a truth commission coming - and I suspect that the worst of the abuses have yet to be revealed.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The Three Andrews
Favourites
- 10 Zen Monkeys
- 82 Games
- Afarensis
- Bad Astronomy
- Basketbawful
- Battle of Alberta
- Bloggingheads TV
- Boing Boing
- Book Forum + Poli-sci daily review
- Bruce Sterling
- Cafe Hayek
- Calgary Grit
- Canadian Cynic
- Centauri Dreams
- Claremont Institute
- Crooks and Liars
- Darwinian Conservativism
- Detroit Bad Boys
- Discover Magazine
- Dispatches from the Culture Wars
- Ectoplasmosis
- Elect Econ
- Eric Duhatschek
- Film Threat
- Foreign Affairs
- Foreign Policy
- Freakonomics
- Free Darko
- Friendly Atheist
- From Deep
- Galloping Beaver
- Greg Mankiw
- Hoops Addict
- Huffington Post
- I hate the raptors
- Illegal Curve
- Internet Movie Data Base
- James Mirtle
- Japers' Rink
- John Hawks Anthropology blog
- Kukla's Korner
- Listening Towards - Lectures on-line
- Lowetide
- Marginal Revolution
- National Review
- Neurophilosophy
- NY Times - Politics
- NY Times - Science
- Open Culture
- Pharyngula
- Positive Liberty
- Psyblog
- Raptors HQ
- Reason Magazine
- Respectful Insolence
- Rising Suns
- Ruthless Reviews
- Seed Magazine
- Slate
- Stackleberg Follower
- Talking Points Memo
- The Loom
- The Painted Area
- The Volokh Conspiracy
- Tom Benjamin
- Total Dick-Head
- William Gibson
- Worthwhile Canadian Initiative
- You Tube
3 comments:
1. Rush's comments are stupid. I listen to him sometimes when in my car and frankly after 10 minutes or so, I want to choke him. At the end of the day, though, he is nothing but an entertainer. His job is to talk 4 hours a day. Much of what he says is not well thought out.
2. Forgetting Rush, it is true that torture did happen. My understanding is that it happened to terrorists and detainees from Afghanistan. Here, the motive for torture was to obtain information on other terrorists. It goes without saying I do not approve of torture. But I do not think that waterboarding these people rises to a level of "war crimes".
3. To my knowledge, torture did not go on in the Iraq theater. To be sure, it occurred in places like Abu Gharib, but this was not officially sanctioned. Those who tortured in Iraq, when caught, were sanctioned.
I do not think that it is a good idea to prosecute officials who had policies that were different that the current administration. In the aftermath of 9-11 there were credible arguments made that in order to prevent more terrorist acts that aggressive tactics were necessary, including waterboarding and the like. Now you and I agree that for the most part these actions are unjustified. I actually believe that torture is probably defensible in cases of imminent calamitous danger and the probability of preventing such danger by extreme interrogations. I would suspect that such circumstances are very rare. People in the previous administration were a bit more liberal in their administration of torture. But I do not think this constitutes war crimes.
I also think that there is an extreme danger in an administration prosecuting a previous administration for what the latter thought were honest and appropriate action. The Bush Party lost in part because people did not agree with torture. But to being to prosecute the administration, then I can imagine that future administrations will be increasingly reluctant to give up power in the fear of being prosecuted. Our republic may degenerate into a banana republic, and our democracy slide to despotism.
Bad things happened under BushI regime, pre-Clinton; worse under Bush II/ Darth Cheney.
Torture truth commission I am pessimistic about.
Rush L is LOL, yet pathetic. Who cares.
We will see what happens...
Badrabbi said;
1. Rush's comments are stupid. I listen to him sometimes when in my car and frankly after 10 minutes or so, I want to choke him.
- I agree. However I think you underestimate his importance in American politics. The current chairman of the RNC (Steele) had to publicly fellate Rush after making a negative comment about him. In a way, Rush is currently what is driving the GOP agenda (such as it is) along with Fox News. He may be an egomaniacal blowhard, but he is an influential one.
Badrabbi:
2. Forgetting Rush, it is true that torture did happen. My understanding is that it happened to terrorists and detainees from Afghanistan.
- Partially true. It happened to terrorist 'suspects' (none of the people tortured were taken to trial and demonstrated to be terrorists before they were tortured) and a host of detainees from Afghanistan, but it also happened to American citizens, and in the case of Maher Arar and Omar Khadr at least two Canadians.
Badrabbi:
Here, the motive for torture was to obtain information on other terrorists.
- Actually I believe the current documents reveal something different. In the case of Abu Zabudhay the interrogations prior to his being tortured gave almost if not all of the useful intelligence he provided. The tortured him for the links between Al Qaeda and Iraq - which now know for certain didn't exist.
Badrabbi: It goes without saying I do not approve of torture. But I do not think that waterboarding these people rises to a level of "war crimes".
- Curiously the US government up to George Bush taking over disagrees with you. Reagan pushed for and signed the International treaty on torture, and it specifically includes waterboarding. The US executed Japanese soldiers guilty of it after WWII, and executed Khmer Rouge soldiers guilty of it during the Vietnam War. Waterboarding has always been considered torture.
Let's also be clear on what waterboarding is - its not 'like' drowning someone, it actually IS drowning someone. In the case of one prisoner he was waterboarded 183 times IN ONE MONTH. If that isn't torture - why do it?
Nor is waterboarding all that they did. At least a dozen men have died during these 'harsh' interrogations from beatings, hypothermia, etc. Jose Padilla appears to have been driven insane by the sensory deprivation and torture he has endured. To suggest that these do not constitute 'war crimes' is to render the concept of them meaningless.
Badrabbi said:
3. To my knowledge, torture did not go on in the Iraq theater.
- I think this is patently false. Bagram air-base is one of the major centers for interrogation and is located in the Iraq theater.
Badrabbi:
To be sure, it occurred in places like Abu Gharib, but this was not officially sanctioned.
- On the contrary. The torture was first tried out at Gitmo and the memos released indicate that the tactics 'migrated' to Abu Ghraib afterwards. Further it is clear from the memos that it was sanctioned by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and others with Yoo, Bybee and other lawyers asked to come up with legal cover. Nor was this something that was started in the heat of 9-11 and then dialed back after Abu Ghraib - as the memos show, Cheney and others increased the pressure for harsh interrogation methods (torture to everyone else) years after 9-11.
Badrabbi:
Those who tortured in Iraq, when caught, were sanctioned.
- A few low level grunts were fingered as 'rotten apples' but its clear now from the memos released that they were anything but. The call for torture and the legal cover for it was constructed at the highest levels of the US administration.
Badrabbi:
I do not think that it is a good idea to prosecute officials who had policies that were different that the current administration.
- There is a concept in the Western canon called 'the rule of law' which makes governments and the individuals who run them accountable for obeying the laws of the land. It was the rallying cry of Republicans that Clinton had to obey the rule of law and submit for prosecution on perjury charges when he lied about his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky - and they were right to do so.
Now we have an administration that deliberately and consciously created a program for torturing people who had not been charged or prosecuted of any crimes, in violation of international and domestic laws. The rule of law was good enough to begin judicial proceedings against Clinton - despite the obvious pettiness, and it definitely should be good enough to hold those responsible accountable for turning the IUS into a banana republic torture regime.
Bad rabbi: In the aftermath of 9-11 there were credible arguments made that in order to prevent more terrorist acts that aggressive tactics were necessary, including waterboarding and the like. Now you and I agree that for the most part these actions are unjustified.
- Actually I would argue (as would the US constitution) that they are never justified. The constitution exists not just to be followed in peace-time, but is even more important to be followed in war-time.
Badrabbi: I actually believe that torture is probably defensible in cases of imminent calamitous danger and the probability of preventing such danger by extreme interrogations. I would suspect that such circumstances are very rare.
- Agreed. This is the 'ticking bomb' scenario much beloved by hypothetical spewing GOP members in love with the idea of torture (I'm looking at you National Review Online), but nothing in what transpired on or after 9-11 meets that criteria for consideration. And lets be clear, the US constitution does not say torture is wrong 'except during a ticking bomb scenario' it categorically protects against it - always.
Badrabbi:
I also think that there is an extreme danger in an administration prosecuting a previous administration for what the latter thought were honest and appropriate action.
- On its face the IRC report and the released CIA memos indicate that war-crimes were committed by definition of the treaties signed into law by none other than Ronald Reagan (and believe me, I have no love for Reagan). As such, the US actually has a legal duty to prosecute the offenders or violate the very treaties they helped bring into existence.
Badrabbi:
The Bush Party lost in part because people did not agree with torture. But to being to prosecute the administration, then I can imagine that future administrations will be increasingly reluctant to give up power in the fear of being prosecuted. Our republic may degenerate into a banana republic, and our democracy slide to despotism.
- This is a very strange argument to me. You seem to suggest that the current administration should not prosecute the previous one - even if guilty, because future adminstrations that commit war-crimes would be less likely to leave office?
On the contrary I suggest that prosecuting the Bush regime for their crimes sends the message to all future administrations that they will be held accountable for their crimes and act as a warning not break the law as seriously and frequently as the Bush regime did!
To sum up;
- There is no longer any question that the US tortured prisoners without trial or council.
- There is no question that this is illegal conduct
- This decision to torture suspects was premeditated, and carefully planned (its why they held the prisoners at Gitmo - its not 'officially' US soil so the argument goes the standard set of rights for prisoners wouldn't apply).
- The US has both a moral and a treaty obligation to prosecute the offenders.
- I suspect it will be revealed that key Democrats had a role in allowing this to happen (i.e. I suspect strongly that Nancy Pelosi was aware of and signed off on the torture program so as not to appear 'weak'). If so, it is important to prosecute them too.
Post a Comment