Now, it is possible that no interrogator at Guantanamo Bay ever flushed pages of the Koran down the toilet, as the now-retracted Newsweek story reported—although several former Guantanamo detainees have alleged just that. It is also possible that Newsweek reporters relied too much on an uncertain source, or that the magazine confused the story with (confirmed) reports that prisoners themselves used Korans to block toilets as a form of protest.
But surely the larger point is not the story itself but that it was so eminently plausible, in Pakistan, Afghanistan and everywhere else. And it was plausible precisely because interrogation techniques designed to be offensive to Muslims were used in Iraq and Guantanamo, as administration and military officials have also confirmed.
I know many of you would be happier to have me flog the dead equine of Newsweek's hideous error, but the fact is the story was believable. I mean, we've actually killed several of these prisoners in captivity. What's a little Koran-flushing compared to that? We've sicced dogs on these guys, tortured a couple to death, forced them to have simulated...uh...gayness with each other, and generally done pretty much every thing we could think of to humiliate and degrade them.
All in a good cause, of course.
Yeah, OK, Newsweek should've been more cautious. But in the environment that we've created by our treatment of prisoners, stories about disrespect to the Koran are eminently believable. And that's the fault of the Bush Administration, not Michael Isikoff. Our treatment of prisoners has created an environment where practically any story about questionable interrogation techniques are believable. Abu Ghraib was certainly an egregious case of such treatment, and the idiots in charge there certainly let things go too far. But even without that, the problems at Gitmo and in Afghanistan are troubling, too.
Now, there's a lot of you who read us regularly who have a cow every time we hint that torture may be bad. "Oh, but these are such bad people," you whine, "And we're saving lives!" OK, fine, but then you should have a nice hot cup of STFU when something like the Newsweek debacle occurs, because you're complicit in creating an environment where this kind of thing is instantly believable. I'm not saying Newsweek didn't step on their pee-pees, but I am saying you should probably tone down the outrage, since you're part of the environment of condoning such stuff. I mean, face it, if it was true, you wouldn't care that it had been done, would you?
You don't get to have it both ways. You don't get to defend torture, then complain because the Muslim crazies take it amiss. Or because our own press is too quick to believe that you mean what you say. That's just disingenuous.
UPDATE [Jon Henke] — To add to what Dale's written, and to carry on an email debate I've been having with Dean Esmay, allow me to point out that there seems to be some confusion about Koran desecration. For my part, I don't think flushing a Koran constitutes "torture", though it might be reasonable said to be "abuse". Consider what the Geneva Convention prohibits...
No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.
"But", you might argue, "they don't even deserve Prisoner of War status!" Oh, really? How do you know? Did they get a tribunal to determine their status, and did they get it prior to their mistreatment...as required by the Geneva Convention? Indeed, since we've let go a great many of the people held at Guantanamo Bay when it turned out that, oops, they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time, it seems highly unlikely that we've been excercising perfect judgement here. And while we're holding this mix of terrorists, Taliban and innocents without the due process we demand for ourselves, we're violating the Geneva Convention rights by which we agreed to abide.
"But", others of you argue, "I don't care how offensive it is to the prisoner's sensibilities" (I'm looking at you, Dean), or worse, "I could care less. Torture the sh!t outa them". (and here, I'm looking at a lot of people in the comment section)
Well, that's a damned strange way you have of trying to win a war for the hearts and minds of the people of the Middle East. If you think the way to win this war is to offend the people we're trying to free, while simultaneously abandoning any pretense of the "moral high ground" with respect to the way we treat those same people, then why the hell are we even fighting? If torture and the abandonment of the rule of law when it's convenient is just peachy keen, then what was wrong with the regimes they already had?
And don't give me the crap about "we're trying to win a war here!" Nonsense. At this point, we're not fighting a war to topple opposing armies—we're fighting a war to win the trust and cooperation of populations. Offending them and otherwise demonstrating our moral depravity doesn't help. We can win the war without peeling back detainee fingernails, and we can win the war without profaning Islam.
In any event, don't complain about their abuses, while condoning our own. "But they beheaded people!" has got to be the stupidest argument I've ever heard. For one thing, the fact that a guy in Iraq beheaded somebody does not give us carte blanche to abandon the Geneva Conovention, or our own standards of decency with entirely different people.
Finally, to the widespread notion that, as Dean wrote, Newsweek is "unpatriotic" because they printed a story potentially damaging to US interests. Count me in John Cole's camp:
The media was wrong for reporting a false story, but had the story been accurate, they were well within their rights and, IMHO, obligated to report this sort of thing. Which would be worse in the war on terror in the long run- suspicions of abuse and sacrilege running rampant for years, or said abuses acknowledged, aplogized for, and punished? [...] The media accurately and fairly reporting abuses of power by the government and media, even in a time of war, is not a problem. Ever. LaShawn asks, "To what end???" To what end, indeed? Should My Lai have been reported? Watergate- it was a time of war, you know. Abu Ghraib? What about the NCO who grenaded his fellow soldiers? I, for one, do not want to travel down that slippery slope.
They say that the sign of character is what you do when no one is looking. I don't want to give us that chance. I like the media looking into things, thank you very much. Otherwise, as noble and as just as the American people are, we could start slouching towards Mugabe style government. And only the French want that.
I'm much more worried about the administration, military and individuals who let despicable abuse happen than I am about the media which reports that our representatives are engaged in despicable abuse.
But I have to wonder if that doesn’t apply to the other side, as well?
That is, you cannot claim to be the "religion of peace," to be every bit as devoted to peaceful coexistence, tolerance, etc., and at the same time kill a score or so of people because of what was done (possibly) to a Holy Book of yours.
Let’s be serious, here. Can anyone really claim (MKU aside) that there is any foreseeable circumstances or "Piss Christ" was going to lead to massive riots across the Christian world and a few dozen deaths?
Or that flushing a Torah down the toilet would lead to Jewish suicide bombings against the ethnic compatriots of the flushers?
Yes, Abu Ghraib and the discussion of torture laid the foundation for the credibility accorded the Newsweek story. (Not really; as the Left has noted, similar stories have been floating for months, if not years. What was new was that Newsweek claimed that the Pentagon had confirmed said stories. But for purposes of argument, it’ll work here.)
Now, will the Left and the Muslim world accept the same standards of proof, consequence, relationship, and logical connection, and accept that Islam, as it is currently practiced in a number of countries, and under the influence of certain particular sects (which operate here in the US as well) is not the Religion of Peace and should not be automatically shielded as such in public discussion?
And, no, I’m not saying that all Muslims are terrorists, but then, I assume Newsweek isn’t claiming that all soldiers are torturers either.
Now, there’s a lot of you who read us regularly who have a cow every time we hint that torture may be bad. "Oh, but these are such bad people," you whine, "And we’re saving lives!" OK, fine, but then you should have a nice hot cup of STFU when something like the Newsweek debacle occurs, because you’re complicit in creating an environment where this kind of thing is instantly believable.
Well said Dale. Your whole post is dead on accurate.
The fact that the story is plausible is far from the most important issue here. The big story, I continue to maintain, is that Newsweek printed a rumor and called it news. They printed something that had heretofore been the sole province of terrorists trained to tell that specific lie and, just because the rumor came from a government source who thought he might have seen some reference to it in some document he couldn’t quite find, the magazine rased it to the level of actual, factual news.
Look, I don’t weep a single tear over most of what has happened to these detainees. These guys have been doing their dead-level best to kill us and I’m quite honestly disgusted that we have written a policy to treat the Koran with kid gloves when we can’t be bothered to give any other holy book that level of official protection (and where, exactly, are the First Amendment crusaders on that point, hmm?). I know we differ ovre the issue of torture, and even over the dfinition of torture. I don’t expect that we’ll be resolved on that anytime soon.
But I think maybe we can reach some agreement on this plausibility issue. Two things, specifically, make this rumor implausible to me. First, where will you find a toilet on this planet capable of flushing a copy of the Koran? For that matter, where would you find a tiolet capable of flushing ten pages of the Koran?
Second, do you really believe that any professionally-trained interrogator believes that a subject is going to be more pliable, or that you’ll break his will, by desecrating the thing he finds most sacred in all the world? It’s way, way more likely that any devout Muslims, upon seeing his Koran hit the toilet is going to get angry, become harder to handle, and will be more resolved not to break in the face of the desecration. I don’t know that we’d disagree on that.
I think Applebaum’s knee-jerking here a bit with her plausibility argument.
Ok, so here is a simple question: Is the Newsweek story really News?
As you state, the information about torture and even the conjecture on torture and maltreatment are already in the public scope. Even the allegations of defilement of the Koran has been news before. If this isn’t news, what is it? Reporting old allegations and unsubstantiated information as fact does no one any service except for those that wish to continue to grind the axe against the Bush administration. Not that they needed this one to have a topic.
Also, just because there is an allegation of a questionable technique doesn’t make it a fact. Even a if an allegation is believable doesn’t make it truth. I could have sworn that journalism was about facts, not conjecture. If I wanted conjecture, I’d be reading op-eds or blogs. (Oh, wait, I am. But blogs set conjecture in the scope of questioning, not reporting facts.)
I could care less about these people being bad or not. It is irrelevant to the central part of the issue. Newsweek reported unsubstatiated (or poorly substantiated depending on your point of view) information and the results lead in part to riots in Afghanistan that ended in deaths. Shouldn’t this weigh on someone’s conscience?
I agree that you can’t support the torture and then screech about this report. They did wrong, the administration/military did wrong. But each wrong needs to be held up to the light individually. Neither justifies the other. I just don’t buy the complicity in creating the environment. That strikes me as justification for shoddy journalism. The present administration/military did indeed create the environment, but not showing due diligence in reporting facts needs to stand on its own when being judged.
Well said Dale. Your whole post is dead on accurate.
I agree.
Now, will the Left and the Muslim world accept the same standards of proof, consequence, relationship, and logical connection, and accept that Islam, as it is currently practiced in a number of countries, and under the influence of certain particular sects (which operate here in the US as well) is not the Religion of Peace and should not be automatically shielded as such in public discussion?
George W. Bush is the one who called Islam the "Religion of Peace". Just because the left disagrees with you and you disagree with Islam does not mean the Left and Islam agree on anything. I’d argue that like most religions, Islam enables its adherents to do evil in the name of God; I’m no friend of Islam.
Look, I don’t weep a single tear over most of what has happened to these detainees.
I mean, we’ve actually killed several of these prisoners in captivity. What’s a little Koran-flushing compared to that?
Why nothing, I guess. I now feel justified in writing my Congresscritter and Senators telling them that since we’re going to be accused of all sorts of crap, then we might as well do it by design rather than having our transplanted prison guards dream up stupid shit on their own.
I’d say our military has done a pretty honorable job in this war. Abu Ghraib was a hideous situation, but it’s also been an isolated incident/situation. I’m not personally aware of any rampant torture problems. Our media, specifically Newsweek, has a predisposition to believe this story to the point that it didn’t pursue further proof even though the statement could be so harmful to America’s foreign policy. I personally believe it’s a cop out to say, "Well, Abu Ghraib happened and that is why this story is believable and because it’s believable I don’t have to find any hard proof". Bullsh*t! Newsweek should have demanded more evidence before printing such a story. American security is at risk here!!! This is a weak excuse.
I’m glad the Newsweek scandal has happened because it has made me aware that the Abu Ghraib scandal has seriously impacted some people. I personally thought what those handful of soldiers did was awful, embarrassing, and wrong, but it hasn’t made me think so little of the military that I wouldn’t require hard proof of an accusation against them.
Torture the sh!t outa them. Whatever happened to the news keeping their mouth shut on issues concerning war? Whatever happened to good ole propaganda? isn’t that what is needed?
Why couldn’t newsweek just stfu in the first place? WHy is an american news magazine so interested in looking for a story that will make the U.S. look bad? Why are people so interested in making the military and the U.S. look bad? Aren’t they Americans? Or don’t they care? Do they only care when their guy is in power?
What was the purpose of writing the story in the first place. If they had something that seemed unduly (sp?) , then why did they not go to the pentagon and ask about it first? Oh, of course, they don’t like the pentagon, ya know, the military.
Why is it that the MSM is so interested in finding out ALL the bad things about what the U.S. is doing , instead of finding out what good has happened? Oh, that’s right, it wouldn’t be news then.
I say f*ck em all. They, and those that support them are no better than the sh!t I just wiped off my a$$.
If you can’t accept a few bruises, don’t get in a fight.
You don’t get to defend torture, then complain because the Muslim crazies take it amiss.
Then answer the question that John was unwilling to answer in his technical defense of Sullivan ("He was right, but I don’t mean anything by that!"): Given that these folks have believed that we desecrated the Quran since waaaaay before Abu Ghraib, why no riots over it till now?
I mean, sure, the happenings at AG and Gitmo made it easier for ME to believe the desecration story, but these "Muslim crazies" have had the story, or similar ones, pumped into their conciousnesses by the Arab Media and their leaders continuosly. Hell, sometimes even the British media have participated(remember the Koran tossed onto the guy’s pinup books and how the sight of that desecration made him beat his mother uncontrollably?).
If the torture is really what made the "Muslim crazies" take it seriously this time, then what was so special about the Newsweek story that hasn’t been true about pretty much every other story since AG?
I agree completely with the post all the way up to the point where you argue that the "Muslim crazies" are the reason we shouldn’t torture. The "Muslim crazies" are gonna believe the worse about us anyway.
You don’t get to defend torture, then complain because the Muslim crazies take it amiss.
Just to give you a chance to climb back in from the Andrew Sullivan ledge- you just wrote a statement that equated actual torture with flushing a Koran.
And it was plausible precisely because interrogation techniques designed to be offensive to Muslims were used in Iraq and Guantanamo, as administration and military officials have also confirmed
Well, the horror! You mean that all this time we could’ve been getting massive amounts of information by being their friend? Maybe we could’ve gotten better info if our soldiers and the prisoners shared a mutual Israeli flag burning session. Or even better- why not earn our prisoners goodwill by tossing them a Jew or a burqualess woman to beat the shit out of? Yes, I’m sure we’d have made more headway by now.
Listen, this obsessive hand wringing is just convincing me that western society simply cannot win this war on terror. We’re nothing but a fricking bunch of veals so concerned about not offending anyone, or riling anyone up.
It’s ok for the media to show thousands upon thousands of Abu Ghraib pictures, but they won’t show anyone jumping from the WTC because it might inflame us. But to inflame our enemies is ok? The GOP has a 9/11 memorial in their convention, and the worry is they’re "exploiting" it? SCREW THAT. Both parties should be waving 9/11 around like the proverbial bloody shirt.
But now we can’t do anything that makes our enemies mad. Or offends anyone anywhere. What a bunch of self-flagellating hand wringing milquetoasts are we becoming? We flushed a Koran THAT WE GAVE TO OUR PRISONERS- oh the horror! Nobody gives a shit when a crucifix is thrown into a jar of urine. Or when Jewish religious symbols are trashed.
Yes yes yes. We’re a horrible, terrible nation for humiliating our prisoners, who are given a brand new holy book, who are housed and fed so well that they gain weight, that they’re allowed access to oh so many resources and amenities that aren’t available to poor slobs who get their heads chopped off.
Enough with this crap already. Are we trying to fight a PC war? If so, can we just give up now and save us the money and embarassment?
Then answer the question that John was unwilling to answer in his technical defense of Sullivan...
I think Jon is perfectly capable of answering for himself. I wouldn’t presume to speak for him. I wouldn’t even presume myself to be competent to speak for him. I think I’ll confine myself to answering for what I write.
Just to give you a chance to climb back in from the Andrew Sullivan ledge- you just wrote a statement that equated actual torture with flushing a Koran.
No, I didn’t. I merely note that some portion of our readership does condone torture, so it’s inconsistent to complain when Muslims take it amiss.
Dale, these are the final sentences of your post: I’m not saying Newsweek didn’t step on their pee-pees, but I am saying you should probably tone down the outrage, since you’re part of the environment of condoning such stuff. I mean, face it, if it was true, you wouldn’t care that it had been done, would you?
You don’t get to have it both ways. You don’t get to defend torture, then complain because the Muslim crazies take it amiss. Or because our own press is too quick to believe that you mean what you say. That’s just disingenuous.
You are clearly stating that by defending torture one is denied any right to object if the press is thus predisposed both to believe one would defend Koran-flushing, and that it occurred.
Dale, the Koran is a book. Xians are not tortured when an artist puts a crucifix in a jar of his urine, and neither are Muslim terrorists tortured when someone flushes a page or two of their holy text in the crapper. And no, I would not care if it had happened, and moreover I believe Newsweek should not have run the story even had it been true.
My own views on whether torture is ever legitimate in the WOT are anguished, and I honestly can imagine plausible scenarios where I’d countenance it if there was reason to believe there was otherwise insufficient time to prevent the deaths of another 3,000 innocent people, or even more. But even as I struggle over that issue, I am quite clear that tossing pages in a toilet is not only not torture, it is hardly worse than being impolite, no matter how blasphemous a religionist might find that action.
Because, and again: It is just a book. For that reason, I can sit in my home and flush the Koran, the Bible or Das Kapital down my toilet if I wish (and if I had the Mother of all Toilets), free from all possible criminal charges; I would not be free of charges if I tortured someone. (It is surpassingly odd to be explaining such things to another libertarian.)
That you would dismiss my objections to what Newsweek did because I find it morally impossible to advocate a hard and fast ban on all use of pain to extract information in the context of fanatics who plot to fly airplanes into skyscrapers, well, I think you should reconsider the issue. It does not take a genius to realize that many Muslims get very, very upset at any disrespect about their religion, and tend to do things like issue fatwas (Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh) and start riots. That story, even if true, was of little news value to Westerners, but was highly dangerous in dissemination to many Muslims.
Then answer the question that John was unwilling to answer in his technical defense of Sullivan ("He was right, but I don’t mean anything by that!"): Given that these folks have believed that we desecrated the Quran since waaaaay before Abu Ghraib, why no riots over it till now?
I don’t recall the question, but I never intentionally avoid answering a question, so my apologies. First, I certainly don’t recall giving any statement that might approximate "He was right, but I don’t mean anything by that!".
Next, I’d note that the riots actually preceded the Newsweek mention of the Koran desecration. Finally, I’d note that if you think there haven’t been riots, and violence as a result of our behaviour—with respect to Islam or general treatment of detainees—then you’re just not paying attention at all.
Not profaning Islam—respecting their religious views—would not end all riots and violence, but it would give them less fuel for their fire. If you’re not interested in doing everything we can to win "hearts and minds", then you’ve a damned strange view on what it takes to win this war.
But surely the larger point is not the story itself but that it was so eminently plausible, in Pakistan, Afghanistan and everywhere else. And it was plausible precisely because interrogation techniques designed to be offensive to Muslims were used in Iraq and Guantanamo, as administration and military officials have also confirmed.
Anne is correct in the particular, but she leaves out some important context. Namely, it is possible for the US government to pursue a strategy of reaching out to moderate Muslims and still use techniques designed to be offensive to particular Muslim prisoners in exceptional circumstances. And this is the problem with the press accounts: Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and the like are never portrayed as exceptional, but rather they are protrayed as the rule. And this is what McClellan was getting at: why does the press not report on what the official policies are and how well they are adhered to under normal circumstances? The press never give background, but rather always seek to portray exceptional conditions as normal.
You don’t get to have it both ways. You don’t get to defend torture, then complain because the Muslim crazies take it amiss.
But I do get to have it both ways, Dale. That is because Guantanamo is an exceptional response to to an exceptional situation, namely the flying of commercial jets into the WTC. It is not and has never been the general response of the Bush Administration to target ordinary Muslims in that way in the WoT, and they have in fact done a good job of reaching out to the moderates in Afghanistan and Iraq. On the contrary, it is the press that is continually pouring poison into that well by making every exceptional circumstance into the rule. Are we to be barred from every exceptional response to every exceptional circumstance because the press is going to portray it as a normal response?
And it is not just the Muslim "crazies" that take it amiss. (They take everything amiss anyway.) More and more, it is the ordinary Muslims who are buying into the "exception as rule" crap peddled by the likes of Applebaum, Koppel, Hersh, Isikoff, you name it. As a result of the relentless negative coverage, a wedge is being driven between us and the ordinary moderate Muslims we are trying to coopt against the "crazies". For example, did you ever stop to think as a result of hearing about some particular Muslim reaction to these kinds of stories, ala Lileks, "Jeez, we could have gone full Roman on these people." If you have ever thought that, then you should conclude that the Applebaums, the Koppels, the Hershes, and the Isikoffs are doing their jobs.
So is the Koran flushing story "plausible"? Only because the press has done their level headed best to make it seem that way.
PDQ, dozens of people have died under our detention. Dozens. Torture and abuse has happened at dozens of detention centers, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay.
A couple nitpicks, Jon: The Geneva Conventions bind countries which have signed the Geneva Conventions. Among the many signs al Qaeda is not a signatory to the Conventions is that they highjack airplanes with civilians on them and use them as missiles to kill thousands more civilians, which is technically not allowed by the Conventions. If you think al Qaeda should be covered by the Conventions, you should have no problem with the U.S. being bound by the Kyoto Protocols. Or more aptly, you should have no problem with Boston Red Sox fans being bound by the Protocols, since Red Sox Nation is more equivalent, organizationally, to al Qaeda than an actual country.
The release of detainees, contrary to your and Sullivan’s suggestions, by no means means that they were simply innocents in the wrong place at the wrong time, randomly plucked off the streets of Islamabad. If someone has had access to al Qaeda leaders, al Qaeda training facilities, may have knowledge of al Qaeda infrastructure and plans, and we get all that information out of them, but they are not themselves participants in those plans, we probably let them go because we’re done with them, and it costs money and takes space to keep them. I doubt anyone would prefer we keep innocent dupes locked up for life at Gitmo, but that sounds like the preference of those who complain about them being let go with a supposed "oops!".
"But", you might argue, "they don’t even deserve Prisoner of War status!" Oh, really? How do you know? Did they get a tribunal to determine their status, and did they get it prior to their mistreatment...as required by the Geneva Convention?
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
...and since the folks in GITMO are normally in violation of Article 4.2(b), there’s not any doubt about their status.
The Geneva Conventions bind countries which have signed the Geneva Conventions. Among the many signs al Qaeda is not a signatory to the Conventions
Well, "Al Qaeda" is not a country. Iraq is a country, and a signatory to the GC. Afghanistan is a country, though—iirc—not a signatory. Nevertheless, whatever the status of Afghanistan, a "competent tribunal" must decide the status of these detainees.
I would argue that we shouldn’t torture them regardless of their status, but that’s a moral and strategic argument, not a legal one.
As far as the detainees, certainly many of them are Taliban and Al Qaeda. Others, however, were handed over by Warlords, or swept up for being in the wrong place. If you suggest that they were not "simply innocents in the wrong place at the wrong time", I’d point out that, without due process, we simply don’t know that. We’re just taking their word for it. Some of those released, though, were not Taliban or Al Qaeda.
...and since the folks in GITMO are normally in violation of Article 4.2(b), there’s not any doubt about their status.
Well, yes, there is. The assumption is that they receive the POW status, and if there’s doubt about that, then they get the tribunal. We don’t get to "declare" them non-POWs without the tribunal. Also, I would note they they only have to follow one of the guidelines to be accorded POW status.
Speaking for myself, I would argue that Al Qaeda members do not get POW status, while Taliban members should. In fact, Bush said that they would get POW status, though that has not, apparently, obtained in reality.
Ultimately, I side with William F Buckley, who wrote:
Reforms are something we need in Guantanamo, where we have isolated a new species not previously known in the taxonomic order: the man who is not a prisoner of war, not a traitor, but an enemy combatant. If there is reason to be vexed by Secretary Rumsfeld, it is surely that he has not encouraged a Table of Organization that deals with that phenomenon other than simply by sticking him in a corner of Cuba without any avenue of hope or resolution. If it was decided that he should face the firing squad, then at least there would be judicial proceedings to contend with, successfully or unsuccessfully.
Some of the detainees, we are told, have gotten tribunals. Others have not. Really, we don’t know.
Tell you what: When you stop killing your own daughters; when you stop trying to lock young girls into burning buildings; when you eschew shooting school children in the back; and when I can look in a newspaper and read that Muslims are NOT involved in one way or another in revolts, insurrections and hot wars around the world —- and when you’re not working so hard to kill American civilians —- and when you start to show some tolerance and respect for the world’s other religions .. then maybe I’ll feel a bit more worm and fuzzy toward your incredible religion of peace.
All of this leaves me with but one question: "So, how’s the kool-aid, Q&O?"
I agree with SaveFarris—"Fake, but Plausible" is a totally unacceptable standard and blaming this whole Koran-flushing debacle on the Bush Administration is one hop, skip, and a jump from tinfoil-hat-conspiracy land.
Were the "Clinton Chronicles" and conspiracy theories about the Clintons having Vince Foster murdered, or dealing coke out of the White House acceptable because the Clintons’ sleazy past behavior made it "plausible" to some? No, absolutely not.
One does not have to be a "supporter" of "torture" to believe that Newsweek’s crummy, made-up story was well beyond the bonds of responsible journalism.
No, I didn’t. I merely note that some portion of our readership does condone torture, so it’s inconsistent to complain when Muslims take it amiss
Dale, what Muslims are taking amiss in this case is a flushed Koran. This is the 2nd time you’re making this statement. I’ll spell it out for you
"No, I didn’t. I merely note that some portion of our readership does condone torture, so it’s inconsistent to complain when Muslims take flushing a Koran amiss"
You know, the reactions of these "people" to having a Koran flushed is making me think that we’re exactly right to be doing something like that.
Honestly, lets all get a grip here.
Tell you what, lets go back to actual torture and don’t flush the Koran.
I’m with Mona. Its just a book, and not the only copy at that. And if this did happen, I’ll bet the prisioner had a new one waiting for him in his cell.
I don’t understand this hearts a mind stuff. It ain’t going to happen in my grandchildrens life time. Not even if we assumed our proper position, on our knees, kissing their feet, being the infidels that we are. They chop off heads with a knife and we, alledgedly, throw a book in the crapper. Oh the horror, we americans should be soooo ashamed. We’re so insensitive.
So your in John Coles camp, "The media was wrong for reporting a false story, but had the story been accurate, they were well within their rights and, IMHO, obligated to report this sort of thing. " Well so am I, except, it wasn’ true. Isn’t that the issue most people have with this whole fiasco, that the media is fabricating the news instead of reporting it? If one your brothers is an idiot, then you must be to. Thats about the same thing as what the press is doing to the military. Yea I know he acnowledged they were wrong for printing the story, but I sounds more like the line , well this story wasn’t true but we know that this kind of thing goes on so its alright to run it anyway.
David in AK, sounds like your no fan of any religion. Just for kicks can you name me a couple of religions that, in this day and age, enables its adherents to do evil in the name of God? I realize you and I may have different ideas of what evil is. Just courious.
Again, if you don’t think flushing the Koran down the toilet is "so terrible," then you cannot argue that Newsweek shouldn’t report these things.
And if you’re unable to understand why people get upset over these things (and protest—which usually doesn’t end up fatal, but it did this time), then you shouldn’t be allowed to talk on the subject, period.
Again, if you don’t think flushing the Koran down the toilet is "so terrible," then you cannot argue that Newsweek shouldn’t report these things.
Actually, it’s because I don’t think it’s any big deal that I question their mindset for printing it. They wanted to print it because they felt it was such a terrible thing. WTF?
Nation of veals....our bodies may be stronger than our ancestors, but our minds are much much weaker than even those of our grandparents.
Then MSM, Newsweeks title should be Rumorsweek, since news should equate to facts. I understand, and MSM telling me I shouldn’t be alowed to speak on the subject, its a joke right? I mean, if not, then how can the MSM talk about the military?
If you suggest that they were not "simply innocents in the wrong place at the wrong time", I’d point out that, without due process, we simply don’t know that.
That’s a little bit of a dodge, Jon. I wasn’t saying that Gitmo prisoners are clearly not innocents who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, which I know without any objective inquiry. I was saying that the fact they were released certainly does not prove that they were simple ignorant innocents. The argument seems to go, "we wouldn’t have let them go unless they were innocent dupes," and that’s just not the case. Having information about and complicity in terrorist plots can be two different things.
I’m also not advocating or otherwise arguing about the efficacy of torture. You have to agree to be bound by a treaty before you’re bound by it (and can avail yourself of the good parts), that’s all.
Well, yes, there is. The assumption is that they receive the POW status, and if there’s doubt about that, then they get the tribunal. We don’t get to "declare" them non-POWs without the tribunal.
The hell you cannot. If there is any doubt, then you treat them as a POW until you have a tribunal. If there isn’t any doubt, then you don’t. See page 5-11. A copy of AR 190-8is here (PDF!) which covers the makeup of the tribunal, when one is required.
David in AK, sounds like your no fan of any religion.
That’s correct.
Just for kicks can you name me a couple of religions that, in this day and age, enables its adherents to do evil in the name of God?
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, for starters. Depending on how broadly one interprets "God", others can be added to the list.
I realize you and I may have different ideas of what evil is. Just courious.
There are shades of evil, of course—ranging all the way from genocide to infringing on civil rights or subverting the Constitution (church state separation). But I think we can agree that killing innocent people is evil, and we might also agree that armies (broadly defined) embolden their fighters with the assertion that "God is on our side". We also I think can agree that Islam ("Allah Akbar") enables carnage, so I’ll take that as granted and focus more on Christianity. Both sides in the U.S. Civil War justified their part in the bloodbath on Christian grounds, and pulpits on both sides were fully engaged. In Nazi Germany, the Catholic hierarchy at best stood idly by during the holocaust, while the wehrmacht goose-stepped into Poland, France, etc. with "Gott mit uns" reassuringly engraved on their belt buckles. This refrain is now pretty well adopted by our own administration to justify its policies, both foreign and domestic. Even though established Christian churches disavow nuts like Eric Rudolph who justify their bombings on Christian grounds, many are fully on board for the Iraq invasion or Israel’s expansion; some see it as fulfilling end-times prophecy (in my book, a lousy basis for public or foreign policy). Our Christian leaders reassure us that our cause in Iraq is just, even as it has killed untold thousands of innocent Iraqis. And of course we have the current and historic use of Biblical passages to justify bigotry; the current targets are homosexuals who want to live "out of the closet".
At bottom is this: religion is too often mistaken for morality; confusing the two tends to yield bad results.
Dozens? OK, you have a point, but you have only given me the numerator. What is the denominator? And what was done (if anything) to punish the wrongdoers in those dozens of cases? One needs more information to put those "dozens" of instances in context to decide if they are exceptional or "widespread" as you put it. That’s what we’re not getting from the press.
One does not have to be a "supporter" of "torture" to believe that Newsweek’s crummy, made-up story was well beyond the bonds of responsible journalism.
Was it? How many sources does a journalist need to confirm a story? The source was one who had formerly been reliable, and this instance didn’t happen because he just made it up, but because he mistook where he read the incident.
In any event, I understand that two sources are preferred, but a presumptively reliable single source isn’t exactly "well beyond the bonds of responsible journalism". Hell, I’ve passed along information I got from a single source. If it’s wrong, it’s a mistake. THat’s all. There’s a difference.
Isn’t that the issue most people have with this whole fiasco, that the media is fabricating the news instead of reporting it?
Inadvertently passing along an incorrect statement is nothing like "fabricating the news".
I was saying that the fact they were released certainly does not prove that they were simple ignorant innocents.
Ok. I recall reading of Gitmo detainees who were unjustly rounded up with more objectionable figures, but I’ll concede that I just don’t have time to find the citation right now, and I’d hardly ask you to take my word for it.
If there isn’t any doubt, then you don’t
Clearly, there is doubt. Still, I argue that the tribunal is required if they are to be found to both other than POWs.
What is the denominator? And what was done (if anything) to punish the wrongdoers in those dozens of cases?
I was having a similar conversation with Glenn Reynolds yesterday. Apparently, people just don’t know the extent of the abuse. I’m going to work on a post to that end in the near future.
If there is any doubt, then you treat them as a POW until you have a tribunal. If there isn’t any doubt, then you don’t. See page 5-11. A copy of AR 190-8is here (PDF!) which covers the makeup of the tribunal, when one is required.
BTW, the PDF you link indicates clearly that a tribunal is necessary to hold somebody in other than POW status. Status is assumed to be equivalent to POW—if not, status is determined BY a tribunal. The military has due process, too.
