Huh? Are you saying that the media blows things out of reality?

No way!

-mjg

And we're supposed to be upset that our military used a barking dog to scare a terrorist into giving up information?

Two minor problems with this point.

1. We're better than them. Period. The idea of "they do these horrible things so it's not relevant if we do some things that aren't as horrible" is flawed. If Saddam is the "bar" that you set for yourself, well, it's a pretty low bar, isn't it?

2. Threatening terrorists with dogs, etc., doesn't seem so bad to me, either. Unfortunately, most of the people (estimates are 80-90%) at Abu Graib aren't terrorists or militants; they're innocent people who were picked up so that we could determine if they are enemies.

We ran into the same problem in Afghanistan. Many, possibly most, of the people at Gitmo are simply enemies of our "northern alliance" friends. These same friends killed 300 people last year by stuffing them into storage containers, then ventilating them with a machine gun. It's been established that plenty of people who were turned over to us were simply personal "enemies" of one of our "friends", and had nothing to do with the Taliban or al Qaeda.

The point is that, even if you don't believe that "terrorists" should be treated well, you need to first establish who's a terrorist. Many of the people at Abu Graib *would have been* our allies, but it's unlikely now.

Rather than defending it, why don't you condemn it along with the rest of us?

I'll condemn torture. However, barking dogs falls far short of torture. Far far far far short.

Right. So you'd have no problem if, say, your wife were treated like that?

That's what I thought....

I have to agree with Mr. Chaney on this one. I'm getting really sick of people saying "well Saddam did worse so why should we be so worried about ruffling up some terrorists". Is being the bigger man and having ethics and standards such a remote concept these days (or only valid for certain topics)? Now I'm not saying we should let terrorists run us over and the like, far from it. We can still be firm on terror while maintaining integrity, and just because a some crazy dictator thought it'd be fun to maim and torture and murder his own people, it DOESN'T give us a free card to even remotely stoop to their level.

Words lose their meaning when they're tortured - and calling the interrogation techniques authorized "torture" is akin to claiming President Bush is Hitler.

But, then, that's part of the point, isn't it? Exaggerate outrage to hurt a political opponent.

Only one problem - the exaggeration makes it more difficult to win, and more likely we will lose, this war.

Ask yourself this -

are you willing to impose "Miranda" style interrogation rules on our troops knowing that they will cost American lives?

If, by chance, you had Mohammed Atta in custody in the weeks before 9/11 & you knew something was up, but didn't know what, would you have stopped at Miranda?

We're not talking about Atta, we're talking about innocent people at Abu Graib. For those who don't know, Abu Graib is a holding facility where we attempt to determine whether someone is an enemy or not. Most of the people there, 80-90%, are not enemies, they're people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Arguing this on the fringe is useful at times, but most people aren't Mr. Atta. The same argument was used by Israel for years to torture every arab that they arrested because he might be a terrorist.

I cannot stress this enough. We are better than them. We don't do those things. We're America, and we are an example for the rest of the world. We're in a unique position, and we have to recognize that.

I'm tired of seeing this moronic line of reasoning where we can do anything because Saddam did something worse. We cannot on one hand be reveling about how well Iraq is doing and on the other hand dismiss the abuses at Abu Graib as inconsequential.

Well, my thought is - does it make any sense to handcuff ourselves when we're in a fight for existance? The enemy we're up against clearly shows no regard for the niceties of the Geneva Accords, and doesn't give any thought at all to the accepted rules of 'civilized' warfare. (An oxymoronic concept to be sure, but better than nothing...)

Why does it all remind me of the Monty Python skit of the Spanish Inquisition torturing a woman with a comfy chair and pillows?

J.

"We're not talking about Atta, we're talking about innocent people at Abu Graib."

Are we?
Are ALL prisoners in Iraq interrogated like this? If so, this is a serious problem. That would be dumb and inhumane.

However, that doesn't make the techniques themselves illegitimate, which is what the media have been implying.
These techniques should be used on people who are strongly suspected of having important information. And they are perfectly humane in that context.

Who at this stage hasn't heard about Abu Gharib...especially after the NYT and Wapo have reported on it to the exclusivity of everything else.

I think calling the folks at that prison as 'innocents' is just as bad as those blanketing them all as terrrorists. None of us here have all the facts on their incarceration. We certainly are better than them, and nothing can be more evident than our detainees get panties put on their head. Ours get beheaded. I am sure Mr. Berg, Mr Johnson, and Mr. Sun-il would have preferred the latter.

"Well, my thought is - does it make any sense to handcuff ourselves when we're in a fight for existance? The enemy we're up against clearly shows no regard for the niceties of the Geneva Accords, and doesn't give any thought at all to the accepted rules of 'civilized' warfare. (An oxymoronic concept to be sure, but better than nothing...)"

Handcuffing ourselves is one way of looking at it. Not turning into monsters and selling our soul just for the sake of victory is another. The difference between men of honor and the "evil" they fight is that the men of honor don't lower their integrity to evil's level.

I think calling the folks at that prison as 'innocents' is just as bad as those blanketing them all as terrrorists.

I never said that all were, just 80-90%. Given those numbers, of the ten guys in the naked human pyramid, one's a terrorist and the other nine are now against us.

Michael:

We're not talking about Atta, we're talking about innocent people at Abu Graib.

No, we aren't.

You are the one connecting the memos with Abu Ghraib, and you do so with an absence of evidence. Perhaps I have missed it; OTOH, isn't it the point of Bill's post that the memos don't go anywhere near allowing the abuses of Abu Ghraib?

Just how sure are you of those percentages? Any stats? You may be right, but I am highly skeptical. Again, when fighting a foe that shows no regard for fighting in civilian clothes, firing from their supposedly holy mosques...better to be safe than sorry.

I think with every beheading the real street, the American Street cares less and less about our supposed excesses. Our society will at least punish the violaters of the UCMJ, rather than reward them for it like theirs.

Bill Hobbs says, "I'll condemn torture. However, barking dogs falls far short of torture. Far far far far short."

Michael Chaney replies, "Right. So you'd have no problem if, say, your wife were treated like that? That's what I thought...."

If that is torture, then I was tortured on the way to elementary school for several years. I had to walk past a restrained barking dog every day.

OK Hal,

After I'm done stripping you naked, put your hands on top of you head and keep them there while a hold this snarling bare-toothed 100lb. German Shepherd a couple of feet from your crotch. KEEP YOUR HAND ON YOUR HEAD! Get the picture? Bring back fond memories of your school days?

You are the one connecting the memos with Abu Ghraib, and you do so with an absence of evidence. Perhaps I have missed it;

Yep, you did. Reread Bill's post. He's pulling out the brilliant argument that the whole Abu Graib thing doesn't matter because Saddam was worse. Here's the part you missed:

And we're supposed to be upset that our military used a barking dog to scare a terrorist into giving up information?

Thanks for playing.

Next?