Centerfield

The way this article was written is really curious.

1. It describes an insiders account draft manuscript, classified secret (this is the lowest classification there is by the way).

2. It describes a book to be published.

3. It interviews a single person who confirms the manuscript.

Is the source for all three of these, the same individual, namely Saar? If so, the information would be quite suspect.
Usual journalistic practice is to seek multiple sources -- it would be a stretch to say that an interview with Saar, and a manuscript containing information primarily from him, is two sources.

It says Saar didn't "provide" the manuscript, but that doesn't clarify the question of whether he is the sole source for much of the information within it.

The information is especially suspect if he will profiting from the information with the forthcoming book. The article should have explicitly stated whether Saar will have a financial interest in the forthcoming book mentioned at the beginning of the article. The potential for higher sales would provide motivation for fabrication and exaggeration.

Posted by: Susan at January 27, 2005 02:54 PM

That's pretty dramatic in my book, and politically convenient for Democrats I might add. This is alarming information, but I think your are making an extremely emotional argument without either providing much evidence that the event actually took place, or if it did, who ordered it and why. To make a political statement about an Attorney General nomination and link him to a case that is one man's story at best, is in IMO, the wrong way to go about this. It is clear that Gonzalez is partly responsible for policies that many would find morally objectionable, but to what extent he is responsible and what he actually is responsible for, is unclear. Some of this is his own fault for not fully answering questions, but if your going to make statements that the man is responsible for soldiers spreading "fake menstrual blood" on prisoners, than you better cough up more than a guy who is writing a book for profit.

I am not condoning torture, but I think there is a greater understanding here that we need to strive for here. When the military uses torture, why are they using it? If the choice is information that would kill thousands of Americans, are we saying that don't want to authorize whatever means neccesary to save lives? Is this really an issue that can be debated in the open public without endangering national security? Do we really want the details of how our military or intelligence agents get information, discussed on national television in front of the United States Senate? I don't know the answer to these questions... I am really asking.

I think when your life is not in danger, it is pretty easy to judge an action solely on it's face without considering all outside circumstances and consequences. Furthermore, to state that we are no better than those we are fighting, in my very strong opinion, shows a complete lack of understanding regarding the current state of world affairs. This is exactly why your party is not in control of any Federal branch of government, and why Bush won and the Republicans gained in the House and Senate... They don't get it.

Posted by: Mathew at January 27, 2005 03:07 PM

I think Max is basically right here. There are an awful lot of sources of information, at this point, that show abuses in significant numbers and multiple locations. It wasn't just the night shift at Abu Ghraib.

I feel pretty queasy about Alberto Gonzales, because I haven't seen clear answers.

Posted by: William Swann at January 27, 2005 03:24 PM

Actually, Susan, as far as the disemmination of info in the military, "Confidental" is the lowest classification. Secret is the lowest clearance granted to personnel. But you're right, the passing on of Secret information of a sensitive subject in the way they explain, or don't explain, doesn't seem quite ...right, in this instance.

This just doesn't seem in line with anything I've ever come across in my days in the military, and I was a cop, saw some dirty work, but this is a little hard to believe. Memos from Gonzales expressing a view of legal definitions does not, in my mind, translate into using sexually explicit behavior as a torture method. It's just a strange method to use when there are other more...effective ways to get what you need.

Hell, I worry more about the talents and wits of our interrogators if this is the best we can come up with to get information.

Posted by: scott at January 27, 2005 04:42 PM

Susan is making the same bogus argument about Oh my God, someone is making money from a book. That is the capitalist system. You publish books. The author gets paid. This is the same argument that conservatives made about anti-terrorism expert Richard Clarke. He's getting paid, so we don't have to listen. Saar's book stands and falls on its merits, without respect to whether he's getting paid for it or giving the proceeds to charity.

As to the merits, when about a year ago, British Muslim prisoners who had been released from Gitmo said they had been tempted by prostitutes, I assumed that they considered any woman who was unveiled a prostitute. It now seems that we were using sexual harassment to try to break them.

So, getting past the denials, we did it. I have mixed feelings about it. On the whole, I would say that I condone the abuse of Al Qaeda prisoners, especially the higher-ups who knew what they were doing. Ultimately, I think transparency is important. If we're doing it, let's own up to it and not blame it on a few scapegoats.

I distinguish between the terrorists of "global reach" i.e. Al Qaeda, and the insurgents in Iraq, who are mostly locals. The former are more extreme and more dangerous, and so more extreme methods of interrogation may be appropriate. The problem is in conflating the big-time terrorists with local hoodlums in Iraq, and overdoing it with the latter.

Posted by: rickheller at January 27, 2005 05:06 PM

A related question for everyone. In my estimation and at this point in time the biggest black mark on the Bush administration is Guantanamo. I know all of the arguments about this being a "new type of conflict" and that the "geneva convention wasn't built for stateless terrorists". In spite of all of those arguments, I'm still embarassed as an American when Gitmo is discussed. To me its even harder to defend than our efforts in Iraq. (And that's from someone to the right of center.) I'd be interested in responses.

Posted by: Chris at January 27, 2005 05:37 PM

Quickly, everyone! Let's jump directly from lurid purply-prosed unconfirmed third-hand rumors of allegations in a few decontextualized pages of an unpublished manuscript to "disturbing revelations!" Don't wait for any real evidence or anything, just summon the firing squad, condemn the nation!

Seriously, I hope no innocent person ever has to sit in a courtroom with some of you folks in the jury box. They'd be toast, convicted of murder before the reading of the shoplifting charges.

Posted by: Tully at January 27, 2005 05:48 PM

There's a thoughtful Economist article on the subject here:

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3577203

Posted by: Jon Kay at January 27, 2005 06:07 PM

The possibility of making millions could tempt a book author to exaggerate and fabricate claims about Guantanamo. If Saar really is the only source for the worst incidents described, perhaps we should wait for additional witnesses and investigations before assuming they are true. We should do that regardless of whether money is involved. This is what we should normally do in critically assessing the credibility of any information from a single source.

Rick equates this sentiment with, "oh my god, someone is getting paid to write a book, we don't have to listen".

Actually the argument holds even if money isn't involved. Think of it this way:

Suppose you have a book that cites multiple verified sources, with the substance confirmed by official investigations. Then you have a second book, whose sole source is the unverified word of the author. Are they equally credible? Would you assume the second Book is true without even pausing for a second thought?

Rick says, "getting past the denials, we did it. "
Time to brush up on your critical thinking skills, Rick...
Just a claim is published in AP, doesn't mean it is true.

Posted by: Susan at January 27, 2005 06:15 PM

Well unfortunately we are unlike to find someone with a digital camera willing to blow their future on some Gitmo detainees. Last time I checked the guy who started the Abu Ghraib thing is still in hiding from all the death threats.

So what are we left with: similar things occurred at Abu Ghraib , the torture memos that were leaked, most detainees who have been released from Gitmo have reported torture and an unsubstantiated sex tale.

At the very least their seems to be a pattern of abuse that needs to be investigated.

(Maybe we should take up a collection and mail some digital cameras to Gitmo)

Posted by: Bob J Young at January 27, 2005 07:02 PM

Susan,

Everybody exaggerates. The President, Condi Rice, et al exaggerated the threat of WMD from Iraq. People hype books.

There is a huge gap between exaggeration and fabrication. There is absolutely no incentive to fabricate, when you know the full weight of the US government is going to be applied against your claims. I saw this with Clarke's book. Someone suggests there could be fabrication, someone else runs from there and says there is fabrication, and before you know it, a whole group of people are convinced that there is fabrication, without any evidence to support it.

This is not liberal bias on my part, because unlike Chris, I condone the abuse of Al Qaeda prisoners. I just can't stand spin and distortion and attempts to destroy people's reputations with rumors. I don't like it when the Deaniacs do it, and I don't like it when the GOP spin machine does it.

Let's hear what the man has to say. But don't charge fabrication until you have some evidence. Just because Scott McClellan denies something doesn't mean that it's false.

Posted by: rickheller at January 27, 2005 07:43 PM

Just to be clear, I'm not sure exactly how I feel about Gitmo from a pure policy perspective. But at a gut level, prolonged detentions, without some representation, in complete isolation and with questionable interogation techniques disturbs me. Yes, I know "War is hell". I'm sure that didn't make a lot of Union sympathizers (civil war) feel good about Sherman's destruction and it doesn't make me feel better about Gitmo.

In short I don't like the US associated with this.

(Note, this comment is completely separate from the validity of the latest claim "sexual interogation" that began this post)

Posted by: Chris at January 27, 2005 10:18 PM

The thing is...even if this guy from Gitmo is lying..we can't know for sure.

We can't feel with any certainty that our government isn't doing disgusting and lousy and awful things to these people because we've seen pictures of them doing it already, both at Abu Grahib and Gitmo.

The nominee for AG has essentially come out for torture...his own contorted definition notwithstanding.

We can't trust that our side is doing the right thing...even if this guy is lying.

Posted by: carla at January 27, 2005 10:28 PM

When Rick says "getting past the denials, we did it", I take that to mean the overall story is valid -- we engaged in torture in some reasonably broad context. It wasn't just the night shift at Abu Ghraib, as I put it.

Whether this particular accusation is true is not something we can know. But it's not the key question here, is it? When we discuss these stories, we're asking whether some broad phenomenon of torture occurred.

I just did a little run-down of some of the basic information that has come out in the last several months. Here's what I found:

As of a couple weeks ago, according to the Pentagon, a total of a 137 military members had been disciplined or face court-martial for detainee abuse.

According to published reports from just earlier this week, the ACLU uncovered a new round of documents through Freedom of Information Act requests. This is quite a mountain of information, some of it based on reports from detainees and some from reports of U.S. civilian contractors.

Then there's the information documented by the FBI and made public last month by the ACLU due to another FOIA request. The quote below is from the ABC News story, but you might look at the Boston Globe story for more detail and context. This information is from Guantanamo, and may have some relevance to the likely veracity of the new info Max posted in this thread.

They include a heavily edited June 2004 "Urgent Report" addressed to FBI director Robert Mueller which says that an FBI agent "observed numerous physical abuse incidents of Iraqi civilian detainees," including "strangulation, beatings [and] placement of lit cigarettes into the detainees ear openings."

The document states that "[edited] was providing this account to the FBI based on his knowledge that [edited] were engaged in a cover-up of these abuses".

An August 2 email from another FBI agent who said he witnessed Guantanamo detainees under interrogation who were shackled hand and foot in a foetal position on the floor for 18 to 24 hours at a time, and most had "urinated or defacated (sic)" on themselves.

One detainee was held in a room at a temperature "probably well over 100 degrees (Fahrenheit)" (38 Celsius).

"The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his own hair out throughout the night," the agent wrote.

Then, of course, you have the original Abu Ghraib scandal, well documented in photographs. There's a good bit of evidence suggesting that it was more than low-level guards, and involved both military intelligence and civilian contractors.

On the question of higher level officials approving part of these practices, there's a good deal of smoke and perhaps even some fire. Alberto Gonzales needed to answer the questions clearly, soberly, and specifically, during his confirmation hearings. The usual political sidestep is not enough, and, frankly, is a disservice to his country.

Posted by: William Swann at January 27, 2005 11:55 PM

Those poor people, the horror of being sexually teased... all they did was try to kill our soldiers in self defense, right? Is anything more than saying please abusive?

If it was up to me, anything short of physical abuse would be fair game, though I wouldn't officially take anything off the table. I'll consider physical abuse a problem for sure; but until our people kill the "detaineees," then drag their corpses through the streets, burn them, and hang them from a bridge to dance under, I'm not going to feel pity for our enemies.

Posted by: Justin at January 28, 2005 08:50 AM

And what is the right thing, Carla?

Posted by: Mathew at January 28, 2005 08:57 AM

Carla,

Aren't you the one (in the article about Ramsay Clark volunteering to be Saddams defence attorny) who said that you don't even think we should presume Saddam Hussein guilty until he has been proven so in a court of law. Yet here you aren't even willing to give folks in our own government/millitary as much benefit of the doubt as you've given Hussein. Doesn't that strike you as the least bit inconsistant?

Posted by: cengel at January 28, 2005 10:18 AM

Carla, Aren't you the one (in the article about Ramsay Clark volunteering to be Saddams defence attorny) who said that you don't even think we should presume Saddam Hussein guilty until he has been proven so in a court of law. Yet here you aren't even willing to give folks in our own government/millitary as much benefit of the doubt as you've given Hussein. Doesn't that strike you as the least bit inconsistant?

Any individual accused of this sort of thing has to be given the benefit of the doubt and all the usual legal protections. However, concluding that some on our side are not "doing the right thing", as Carla does, seems to be a matter of fact at this point. The Pentagon says 137 members of the military have either been disciplined or face courts-martial.

Posted by: William Swann at January 28, 2005 10:42 AM

The trouble with throwing away the laws and conventions of moral behavior, is that when your done, you have no law and conventions left to protect you.

The French revolution comes to mind, where first they beheaded the royal family then the revolutionaries started beheading each other.

I won't speak for the others who object to torture, but I object for my own safety, not because the detainees are nice people. I also object because we can't know if we are torturing the right people. If the government had proof to convict these guys in a court of law it probably wouldn't be stonewalling the tribunals.

We also have the point that under torture anyone posting on this board would happily confess to being an Islamic terrorist. Has anyone here been so incredibly ill (like passing a kidney stone or having a broken bone) that you would have said anything just to make it stop.

Posted by: Bob J Young at January 28, 2005 10:53 AM

Am I the only one who finds it appalling that Americans are trying to define our "rightness" on this issue by comparing it with the worst examples of our enemies? Doesn't that strike anyone as a seriously slippery slope?

Posted by: Kevin at January 28, 2005 10:55 AM

Mathew:

Odd that you have to ask what the "right thing" is. I should think we could start with basic Geneva Conventions rules for how prisoners should be treated. Yes...I know these aren't considered "POWs", they're "detainees". The hair splitting on this is nauseating.

Cengel:

Yes, I'm the one who said that Saddam deserves an attorney and should be treated in accordance with US standards of jurisprudence.

Our government is not an individual with inalienable rights, first of all. So it's apples and oranges. But secondly, the government has admitted to doing these acts and we have photographic evidence to back it up.

Posted by: carla at January 28, 2005 11:32 AM

William Swann says, "As of a couple weeks ago, according to the Pentagon, a total of a 137 military members had been disciplined or face court-martial for detainee abuse."

Aren't these court martials actually an indication that the government is taking the problem seriously, and not advocating or condoning this behavior at all? If the government advocated and condoned this behavior, court martials are the exact opposite of what one would expect. Likewise with the Abu Grahib prosecutions. And no onebelieves the night shift behavior at Abu Grahib was done for the sake of intelligence gathering, so it would be hard to argue what happened was advocated higher up the chain.

Even the posted article details a woman interrogator who was relieved and reprimanded for just sitting on the lap of a detainee.

Posted by: Susan at January 28, 2005 12:31 PM

Our government is not an individual with inalienable rights, first of all. So it's apples and oranges. But secondly, the government has admitted to doing these acts and we have photographic evidence to back it up.

This may come as a shock, Carla, but "the government" didn't do these things. Individuals did them. Individuals with inalienable rights. Damning these individuals second-hand does not change the blame, if any. To the extent that these individuals did anything in violation of the law, they should be prosecuted. As was Sergeant Granier--who got ten years in Leavenworth, and whom most military personnel I've spoken with believe got off easy, and deserved worse. And to the extent that any illegal actions were authorized and/or ordered by their immediate superiors, said individuals should also be prosecuted. And so on, right up the line.

You're blaming "the government" to justify condemning an entire segment of government, and everyone in it, and by extension the entire nation. By nebulously enlarging the target you create a blanket indictment of everyone, leaving no one person with any real defense. Or any real responsibility. That nebulous blanket indictment allows you to ignore the rights of those who might have actually done something illegal, and who are the ones that should be prosecuted if any crimes were committed. It also allows you to let them escape blame for their individual actions. They were just following orders! But we settled that question at Nuremberg, didn't we?

If you simply find the actions of certain people in the employ of the government distasteful or objectionable or even revolting or potentially illegal, hey, I'm with you! But dodging behind the "apples and oranges" smokescreen to damn them as criminals without recourse while claiming you're not doing so is either meaningless partisan rhetoric or a morally repugnant attempt to deny them their rights as accused. Take your pick.

You're right--the "government" is not a person. The "government" didn't do anything! Only people can commit crimes. People with rights. If any of them comitted crimes, we can prosecute them.

Posted by: Tully at January 28, 2005 12:42 PM

Tully:

Individuals committed the acts...but these individuals happen to be in the employ of the government. Further, there is evidence that the government not only allowed these things to take place, they encouraged it. Gonzales verified much of this during his written response to the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this week.

And frankly, I think there is a very solid argument to be made for a blanket of responsibility for all of us in this matter. Our government is representative of US, the people. And while certain individuals carry out or allow the acts to take place...they're doing it in our name. And just over half of us reelected this scourge even with that knowledge.

This misses the main point, however. That is that we can't trust those in the government to make good decisions and know that they're treating folks humanely. We know this because we've SEEN it, with our own eyes. So even if this guy from Gitmo is completely fabricating his story, we can't dismiss him outright.

That's because we know he could easily be telling the truth.

Posted by: carla at January 28, 2005 01:51 PM

Thank you Tully, you put it more succinctly then I possibly could.

Carla, what you are doing is practicing guilt by association. Nor is it "apples and oranges"....burden of proof is burden of proof regardless of whether your applying it to an individual or an organization.

What has actualy been proven (to the same standard you want to afford Saddam) is that a small number of low ranking individuals have been convicted of wrong-doing. What has not been proven (to the standard you would afford Saddam) is that anyone beyond these individuals was involved in the wrong-doing, that it was condoned by the government or the millitary as an organization.....or that anyone more senior approved of such actions.

By that same token, a small number of low ranking functionaires for the Democratic party have recently been convicted for vandalism during the last Presidential Campaign. Does that mean it's fair to impune the Democratic Party as an organization and the Senior Democratic leadership as nothing but a bunch of vandals just because some portion of thier membership engaged in such activities?

Posted by: Cengel at January 28, 2005 02:58 PM

Individuals committed the acts...but these individuals happen to be in the employ of the government. Further, there is evidence that the government not only allowed these things to take place, they encouraged it.

Note the word "they." A government is an "it." You're proving my point. "The government" isn't some nebulous agency, it's people who can be prosecuted. And accused people have rights. Including the right to defend themselves from blanket indictments such as the one you offer.

And frankly, I think there is a very solid argument to be made for a blanket of responsibility for all of us in this matter. Our government is representative of US, the people. And while certain individuals carry out or allow the acts to take place...they're doing it in our name.

I agree! And that is why we severely prosecute those people who break the law, like Sergeant Granier. Not by blaming "the system" or "the government" and thereby accusing everyone therein of being guilty, without them having a chance to respond, or exercise their rights of defense. It's easy to blame "the government," but it's people we must deal with. It's people who commit crimes. It's people who must be prosecuted.

So if there were violations of the law, we prosecute those people. That's how we, as the people, through our government, exercise our ethical responsibility to ourselves and our self-defense responisbility to check the wolves in our midst. The rule of law. We're one of very damn few nations on the planet to hold our soldiers accountable in such a fashion. Not through attack by innuendo, damning by association, or class-action bill of attainder.

Groupthink. Groupblame. Is that the face of the New Left?

Posted by: Tully at January 28, 2005 03:10 PM

Even better, cengel, a Democratic party official in East St. Louis was recently indicted for trying to arrange the murder-for-hire of the star witness in a vote-fraud case. By Carla's standards, Terry MacAuliffe should be in the cell next to him. GUILTY! GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY!

Posted by: Tully at January 28, 2005 03:16 PM

"This misses the main point, however. That is that we can't trust those in the government to make good decisions and know that they're treating folks humanely. We know this because we've SEEN it, with our own eyes. So even if this guy from Gitmo is completely fabricating his story, we can't dismiss him outright.

That's because we know he could easily be telling the truth."

Carla, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt because I know the amount of leg-work you've done in verifying the facts about the Washington state election. However, what you just wrote above translates to "it's ok for evidence to be fabricated as long as it supports what we think happens to be fact". I hope I am seriously misconstruing what you intended to say because it goes against all the basic principles of justice and fairness that our system is supposed to be based upon.

Look if you want to say that you think it's likely that our government may be involved in systematic mistreatment of prisoners.... well I think you are jumping the gun in terms of the actual availble evidence out there, but you are entitled to form your own opinion. However if you are doing that while at the same time chastising folks for expressing the opinion that Saddam Hussein commited horrible acts because that hasn't been prooven in a court of law yet..... well I think you're being more then a little inconsistant. I hope I am misunderstanding you instead.

Posted by: cengel at January 28, 2005 03:27 PM

Aren't these court martials actually an indication that the government is taking the problem seriously, and not advocating or condoning this behavior at all? If the government advocated and condoned this behavior, court martials are the exact opposite of what one would expect. Likewise with the Abu Grahib prosecutions. And no one believes the night shift behavior at Abu Grahib was done for the sake of intelligence gathering, so it would be hard to argue what happened was advocated higher up the chain.

I think the picture's a little more complicated than that. Much of the stuff in the Abu Ghraib pictures were individual abuses by low-level guards. But the incidents with unmuzzled guard dogs involved intelligence officers calling in dog handlers, and that tactic was approved by Col. Thomas Pappas, the military intelligence officer in charge of Abu Ghraib, who in turn claimed that it was recommended to him by by Maj. General Miller, commander of Gitmo, when he visited Abu Ghraib in the fall of 2003.

The policy of using dogs in interrogations was approved at the highest levels in Iraq -- by Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top U.S. military official in Iraq. It was modified in Oct. of 2003 to require approval from Sanchez on a case-by-case basis.

Who, in this chain of command, has been prosecuted? It seems pretty clear that Col. Pappas was involved in the day-to-day management of it all, as he describes in his own testimony. Maj. Gen. Miller denies it all, and says they never used dogs at Gitmo.

We're finding what we will probably always find in these investigations -- that some abuses are uncovered while others scurry to cover their tracks. As with any crime, you catch only a portion of the offenders.

There's been a good bit of discussion about whether the responsibility goes higher -- into the administration. The infamous Office of Legal Council memo approved by Alberto Gonzales greatly narrowed the scope of activities that would be prosecutable, and was in turn relied upon by the Department of Defense in approving interrogation techniques. Exactly what those guys did, and it's impact on U.S. policy, is way too murky at this point.

Posted by: William Swann at January 28, 2005 04:03 PM

I think what Carla was trying for was a “chain of command” argument.(which can be made independent of whether an actual event took place)

I would pose the argument like this:

Although a group of individuals may have arrested and detained these prisoners they weren't just a bunch of guys out for a stroll in Afghanistan/Iraq/elsewhere. These are members of the U.S. military. They have been given orders to perform a particular mission. They were given equipment, logistical support and personnel. Although the person committing the torture is definitely guilty, the chain of command that ordered these people detained has an inherit responsibility for what occurs to their prisoners. Responsibility for what has occurred hits everyone in the chain of command between torturer and commander and chief.

Yes I know it may seem unfair to blame some smuck in the oval office, but he knew the job was a bitch when he took it. This is not a civilian company like Burger King, this is the U.S. Military, there are codes of conduct that clearly spell out what's allowed. As one general put it “If we wanted them to have opinions we'd issue them a set”.

When people end up in a military prison they are not just the responsibility of some GI with the keys to his handcuffs. Our government captured this man in our name! The little orange jump suit he wears says “property of US government” on it.

If these men are not prisoners of the United States government why can't they just go home? And if the chain of command is going to stop them from leaving Cuba, how can we say that the same chain of command is not responsible for what occurs to them while they are there.

Posted by: Bob J Young at January 28, 2005 04:32 PM

FYI -- This editorial from Wednesday's edition of the Washington Post obviously takes one side on the Gonzalez issue pretty strongly. I went looking for more information on the written answers to Juciciary Committee questions they reference, and couldn't find another written word about it. Very curious.

Posted by: William Swann at January 28, 2005 04:32 PM

So let me get this straight. We are telling our millitary that they are not allowed to "scare" or "intimidate" the people firing RPG's at them and who might hold information that could save the lives of American soldiers or civilians?

Are they not allowed to "look mean" or forget to say "please" and "thank you" as well? Physical abuse, sexual abuse or denying basic neccesities are one thing. I have no problem with having strict regulations against those and of throwing the book against anyone (no matter thier rank) who violates them. However when you start telling guards and interrogators that they aren't allowed to "intimidate" prisoners I think you are going a little too far. Gitmo and Abu Ghraib aren't resort hotels and people don't get put in there for winning beauty contests.

Next thing you know the millitary will be getting chastised because striping the prisoners of thier hand grenades is "emotionaly abusive".

Posted by: cengel at January 28, 2005 04:56 PM

Cengel: Who on this thread said any of those things?

Posted by: Bob J Young at January 28, 2005 05:13 PM

Bob:

Thanks for articulating my position for me. That's pretty much what I was trying to say.

Tully:

If the government is made up of individuals, as both you and I have conceded..then in fact it is a "they". Nor am I saying those accused don't have rights. In fact I've also conceded that those in government can be arrested and prosecuted as well.

But frankly, your absolution of those who keep sending these government people back to their job after they've been caught (arrested and prosecuted or not) commiting heinous acts is irresponsible, IMO. Is Robert McNamara innocent when it came to how he dealt with issues surrounding Vietnam, even though he's never been arrested or found guilty in a court of law? What about Hitler? Noone arrested him or put him on trial. Is he absolved because of this? Dismissal. Denial. Excuses. Is this the groupthink of the new moving target of centrism?

And in regard to McAuliffe, if he had knowledge of, encouraged or ordered in any way the "murder for hire" situation you're referring to, IMO he's no less guilty than the chain of command that led to Abu Ghraib/Gitmo.

The bottom line is...even if this Habib guy is lying...we can't feel secure standing up and saying that we know he is.

And that's the really bad part of this entire, sordid mess.

Posted by: carla at January 28, 2005 05:16 PM

Bob,

That arguement only goes forward as long as all the links in the chain of command are actualy following orders and not overstepping the bounds of the authority that has been granted to them.
Once one of the links in that chain starts disregarding orders and overstepping the bounds of the authority they have been granted then responsibility for any damage which results rests with them...not thier superiors.

In such cases the only responsibilty a superior would have would rest with whether they were excersizing proper dilligence in observing that thier orders were being carried out and reasonable judgement in thier delagation of responsbility to subordinates. Such responsibility is far different in degree to that attached to person responsible for the commiting the wrong-doing itself.

Furthermore, if you've ever been part of a large organization you should realize that a supervisor can excersize all reasonable dilligance and judgement in thier oversight and still have a subordinate who is engaged in misconduct. Furthermore if you've ever been the supervisor of a supervisor in such a situation (and you aren't a total slime bag) then you realize that you don't crucify some-one for something which is beyond thier reasonable expectation to control or predict. Buttom line, any large organization entails a certain deligation of trust.... sometimes (through no real fault of the organization itself or those who run it) that trust will be misplaced.

In terms of Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, the only misconduct that has been proven in a Court of Law
(the standard which Carla would afford to Saddam) belongs to independent actions of low ranking individuals. Now maybe there is something that goes further up the Chain. I wouldn't be horribly surprised if there was some breakdown in oversight at least.... and some folks are now engaged in arse covering. However I am not willing to ASSUME that there is, Nor am I willing to ASSUME that claims made are true simply because they've been made. Nor am I willing to ASSUME that fault or guilt lies with anyone that has not already been given thier day in court to defend themselves.

Now if you have any actual evidence of wrong-doing other then that which has already been determined by Court Martial... then please don't waste your time here... contact the C.I.D. !

Posted by: cengel at January 28, 2005 05:32 PM

Bob,

"Cengel: Who on this thread said any of those things? "

Check out the links that William provided. They essentialy chastise the millitary for allowing thier guards and interrogators to use tactics of intimidation even when such tactics don't result in any physical harm or abuse to the subject.

I guess I was responding to the links. I note that William wasn't expressing a position on that just trying to present factual evidence. Sorry if I was going on a tangent.

Posted by: Cengel at January 28, 2005 05:40 PM

I would think I should contact the I.G. instead.

This is not Burger King or Enron this is the U.S. Military. Commander are responsible for what their troops do. These also are not some nondescript shoplifters. Everyone in the chain of command wants to know what they are saying. If these people are so important that they can never be left go, you cannot successfully plead ignorance as to their circumstance. Not while daily sending attorneys into court to keep them imprisoned and not while people at press conferences keep asking about them.

Posted by: Bob J Young at January 28, 2005 05:46 PM

PS: I always truth check the work of people under me. Especially when it's my butt on the line.

Posted by: Bob J Young at January 28, 2005 05:51 PM

Carla,

"And in regard to McAuliffe, if he had knowledge of, encouraged or ordered in any way the "murder for hire" situation you're referring to, IMO he's no less guilty than the chain of command that led to Abu Ghraib/Gitmo."

There is a big little word in your statement about McAuliffe and that word is "IF". Now I think everyone here and their brother will get behind you if that big little word "IF" is applied in the same context to the chain of command for Abu Ghraib/Gitmo.

However, you seem to want us to skip a very important step..... namely the matter of the resolution raised by the question of fact in that big little word "IF"..... You seem to want us to translate that word "IF" as if it was already resolved to an "IS". Most of the rest of us just want to reserve judgement and see that word "IF" resolved to a better standard of evidence then is afforded by the media circus of rumor and innuendo before we make that leap of faith.

Furthermore, when people were commenting about Saddam Hussein being responsible for crimes against humanity.....and criticizing Ramsay Clarke for volunteering to be associated with Saddams defence. It was you Carla who took people to task for ASSUMING that Saddam was guilty of such acts (despite a mountain of public evidence supporting such claims) and venturing their own OPINION that he was before he had been given his proper day in court to defend himself. All I want is for you to be willing to extend the same courtesy to GWB and the rest of the administration and millitary command (and by extension the half of us morons that "reelected this scourge") the same courtesy that you would be willing to extend to Saddam Hussein....that of presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Unfortunately in your mind I think you've already got GWB, his entire administration and the millitary command structure tried, convicted and sentenced.... the rest of as willing complicit stooges. That's just not the case. If the evidence really is there, it is provided due process and holds up to rigid scrutiny then I will be the first one to pick up the "Impeach Bush" banner......... but forgive me if I am unwilling to do so on your and Dan Rather's say so alone.

Posted by: cengel at January 28, 2005 06:26 PM

Cengel:

There is compelling evidence that those in the chain of command encouraged these sorts of activities that are being described.

I never absolved Hussein. In fact I said outright that he very likely is guilty of a lot of bad stuff. I suggested that he deserves his day in court. I'm more than willing to give any chain of command person their day in court on this as well. And I didn't get after people for ASSUMING Saddam was guilty. I got after people for rattling on about how he was getting his day in court and they didn't seem to be especially concerned that he get it.

What do you want to bet Bush and Rumsfeld and Rice and the rest never see the inside of a courtroom on this? A bit different than Saddam, don't you think?

So until then, all we have is the evidence presented to us. And from where I sit..those soldiers in the pics at Abu Ghraib didn't just show up with hoods. And Gonzales' affirmation of torture (no matter what he wants to call it) is just another link in the chain.

You're saying Bush and his people aren't "willing stooges" despite evidence to the contrary. That's your right. But you sure seemed awfully willing to convict Saddam.

That blade cuts both ways.

Posted by: carla at January 28, 2005 06:37 PM

But frankly, your absolution of those who keep sending these government people back to their job after they've been caught (arrested and prosecuted or not) commiting heinous acts is irresponsible, IMO

And in my opinion, Carla, you're (once again) saying I've said things I haven't. Who in the hell have I "absolved" of anything by saying that individuals who commit crimes should be prosecuted, not groups smeared because the actions of a few of them might have been criminal? By saying that if there is a track of illegal orders, they should be followed and the links of chain prosecuted if warranted by solid evidence? Hitler?!? GMAFB! Can you come up with any more completely irrelevant and gratuitous Nazi reference than that? Mike Godwin would be so proud!

Posted by: Tully at January 29, 2005 12:04 AM

Tully:

You appear to be saying that unless they've been in a court of law and been convicted...we should ignore the confessions of administration officials and the photographs that show items that the rank and file don't get as standard issue gear. Further, these individuals have a CHAIN OF COMMAND. They don't pee without orders. If you want to ignore common sense and logic and reason in favor of rhetoric, be my guest. But just exactly when did the chain of command in the military lose it's responsibilities, in your eyes?

I don't know what GMAFB means...so I can't really address that. LOL

Posted by: carla at January 29, 2005 02:04 PM

You appear to be saying that unless they've been in a court of law and been convicted...we should ignore the confessions of administration officials and the photographs that show items that the rank and file don't get as standard issue gear.

That's "Give Me A Freaking Break," Carla. Trotting out Hitler? Puh-lease! And no, that's not what I meant, and certainly not what I said. I meant and said that when you make blanket accusations against such as "the government" or "the army," you're not accusing specific individuals, you're accusing everyone who belongs to or is employed by those organizations.

That's the same reasoning and the same approach that labelled every Vietnam vet a psychotic baby-killer. It's the same groupblame tactic that justified the pogroms. It's dishonest rhetoric, and by making any real blame diffuse, it effectively labels an entire group (99+% of whom will be totally innocent) while diffusing among the innocent the very real responsibility of any individuals who actually committed any crimes.

If there are actual "confessions" of criminal behavior, those people confessing can be prosecuted with them. If there is solid evidence of crimes, it can be used against the perpetrators. Show the crime. Show the criminal. Link 'em. Prosecute 'em. I'm up with that! But uttering self-righteous accusations and condemnations of entire groups like "the army" or "the government" accomplishes nothing in the way of binging any possible perpetrators to justice. At best, it's rabble-rousing political rhetoric of no real effect. At worst, it's effective at smearing every member of the class accused.

Nor does calling the distasteful and ugly actions of interrogators "criminal" if they're not. If what has been done at Gitmo crosses the lines of legality, we should prosecute those who are responsible, right up the line. If you don't like the tactics they used but they turn out to be legal, then lobby for change.

But calling an entire group "criminals" when it is individuals who are responsible for the behavior, and when the behavior might not even be criminal, is somewhat less than fair or honest. Is "serving in uniform" going to be the left's equivalent of "driving while black?"

I think you can see that point quite clearly.

Posted by: Tully at January 29, 2005 02:57 PM

I meant and said that when you make blanket accusations against such as "the government" or "the army," you're not accusing specific individuals, you're accusing everyone who belongs to or is employed by those organizations.

Oh. Forgive me. Then you in fact do mean to excuse the chain of command, there's no nuance about it. I apologize for thinking you might have a logical position here.

And before you continue to berate me for a position I don't hold, I'm not blaming every single person in the military for torture committed to detainees. Nor am I blaming every person in the government. So you can quit the overblown, underconsidered rhetorical vandalism at your earliest convenience.

I meant what I SAID, which is that those in the chain of command and any individuals which encouraged or condoned these actions are responsible for them. I believe if you were confused...my previous posts should have cleared that up. Somehow you consider that the same thing as indicting the entire military/government. You should no longer be confused.

IF the actions at Gitmo aren't criminal, then they ought to be. At the very least they are deeply beneath any standard that should be held by the United States of America.

I think calling the entire group as I've outlined them on their behavior, be it criminal, animal, vegetable or mineral is completely appropriate.

And further, to go on and on about individuals in this mess is rhetorical rabble rousing at it's finest. Mostly because you and I know that the individuals at the top responsible for these actions stand little or no chance of seeing the inside of any courtroom to answer.

Now that we've careened off of the main point...let me bring us back again. EVEN IF THE COMPLAINER FROM GITMO IS LYING, WE CAN'T TRUST THAT THE GOVERNMENT DIDN'T DO THESE SORTS OF BAD THINGS TO PEOPLE.

Posted by: carla at January 29, 2005 08:32 PM

If I'm confused, Carla, it's because I've relied on what you've actually said. In chronological order you blamed the government, the people, the entire chain of command with or without knowledge/involvement (perhaps a misreading from ambiguous phrasing), and then you agreed it was any individuals actually involved in committing or condoning or ordering crimes who were in truth responsible.

I'm not blaming every single person in the military for torture committed to detainees. Nor am I blaming every person in the government.

I meant what I SAID, which is that those in the chain of command and any individuals which encouraged or condoned these actions are responsible for them.

Agreement! Well, maybe not, 'cause that wasn't exactly what you said until just now even if it was what you meant, and the phrasing still implies that any clueless and innocent people in the chain of command are guilty guilty guilty simply for being in the wrong hierarchy.

...my previous posts should have cleared that up.

Well, no, they didn't. But yeah, I think I've got it now. No, wait...

EVEN IF THE COMPLAINER FROM GITMO IS LYING, WE CAN'T TRUST THAT THE GOVERNMENT DIDN'T DO THESE SORTS OF BAD THINGS TO PEOPLE.

Argh! Back to square one. It's "the government."

I got your point. We can't trust that we're getting full and accurate information. Did you get mine? That using group labels when tossing about slanders tars the whole group with the actions of the few, smearing the innocent, and facilitates allowing the guilty to escape justice?

Posted by: Tully at January 29, 2005 11:39 PM

Hitler?!? GMAFB! Can you come up with any more completely irrelevant and gratuitous Nazi reference than that? Mike Godwin would be so proud!

I literally LOL. Great discussion.(or is this an argument)?

Posted by: Chris at January 31, 2005 04:25 PM

I got your point. We can't trust that we're getting full and accurate information. Did you get mine? That using group labels when tossing about slanders tars the whole group with the actions of the few, smearing the innocent, and facilitates allowing the guilty to escape justice?

I get that you believe we can only label individuals and not the entity as a whole..even if large portions of the entity are to blame.

I disagree with that notion to the extent that, especially in military and government,there is a chain of command. All of those within that chain bear responsibility..and any who condoned or allowed those acts to take place.

I believe it is your notion, not mine, which allows many guilty of these sorts of acts to escape punishment. By only focusing on individuals who actually physically committed the acts, the rest as I've outlined aren't indicted as they should be.

Posted by: carla at January 31, 2005 08:13 PM

I disagree with that notion to the extent that, especially in military and government,there is a chain of command. All of those within that chain bear responsibility..and any who condoned or allowed those acts to take place.

Oops. That should read:

I disagree with that notion to the extent that, especially in military and government, there is a chain of command. All of those within that chain bear responsibility, as well as any who condoned or allowed those acts to take place.

Posted by: carla at January 31, 2005 08:15 PM

Carla, it's readily apparent that you have just about zero comprehension of the legalities and realities of how the chain of command works in the military, or the difference between command responsibilities and legal ones in the military. You're not looking for those "responsible," you're simply looking to condemn everyone you conceivably can, regardless of whether or not they even had any knowledge or responsibility, and you're doing so on some false notion that all superior officers are criminally and/or administratively responsible for all of the actions of all their inferiors, all of the time, even if they knew nothing about the actions and could not reasonably be expected to have known, and did nothing wrong in either their issuing of orders or monitoring of results to promote or condone the activity.

Under this reasoning, every time a trooper gets in a bar fight every single person in their chain of command up to the Joint Chiefs and the CiC should be tossed in the hoosegow for assault as "responsible."

IOW, you're hunting for scapegoats in battalions by employing a false (and bankrupt) premise, rhetorically condemning groups for the actions of individuals. Which is exactly what I was berating you for.

Posted by: Tully at February 3, 2005 10:44 AM