This has fallen into the category of "old news," but in a way, it's still relevant, so here goes - I am totally, 110 percent disgusted by the treatment of Iraqi prisoners. It was wrong and despicable.
But, yes, I said "treatment." Not "torture."
The left-wing was quick to condemn it as torture. And although I share their condemnation of what happened at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, I do not agree that it amounts to torture.
The treatment these Iraqi POWs would have received at the hands of Saddam Hussein would have extended way beyond spreading their buttcheeks for the camera. And what about the hooded fellow with wires attached to him? Maddas would have ensured they were live. The Americans never turned on the juice.
Admittedly, it is rotten to the core to string a person to electrical wires, live or not. The prisoner did not know whether or not he'd be electrocuted if he moved off the block he stood on. And, as Muslims, it was psychologically grueling to pose in homoerotic fashion in front of cameras with American soldiers grinning in the background.
Agreed: This is below-the-belt, sick, disgusting, obnoxious behavior on the part of the American soldiers and guards in question.
Yet, it was not torture. Torture involves extreme physical pain or mental pain beyond what is considered bearable. Telling someone his brother is going to die is mental torture; stripping one of his clothes and having him pose naked is not. It is highly humiliating to be sure, but torture it is not.
We did not cattle prod these POWs. We did not yank their teeth out with a pair of pliers. We did not force them to engage in sexual activity of any kind.
We threw hoods over them and forced them to wave their penises about and bear their behinds, and strapped at least one of them to unhooked electrical wires. This is not the sort of behavior you'd expect Saddam Hussein or Fidel Castro or Robert Mugabe to do to their prisoners of war.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Hal Pawluk
Torture, shmorture - no apologia, no amount of quibbling is going to restore America's self-designated claim to the moral high ground in the eyes of much of the world.
2 - Al Barger
And SCREW "much of the world." They hate us anyway. If a few mild pictures like this is all it takes for them to consider US the bad guys, then they've already decided that and it wouldn't make any difference what we do or don't.
"Much of the world" doesn't need to like us, or think that we're "moral." They just need to know not to try to kill us.
3 - mike
Get ready for the "non-zero probability":
http://maxspeak.org/mt/archives/000390.html
4 - Hal Pawluk
How about this from the 53-page report by Major General Antonio M. Taguba:
Still think it's just a word game?Okay, how about the 25 Iraqis who died in prison? 12 were from natural causes, but the other 13 are getting further investigation. So far, it appears that there are already 3 murder charges being prepared.
"Treatment" my ass.
5 - Mac Diva
"Old news"? Today's headlines say that at least 25 Iraqi prisoners may have been killed. Far Right Wingers have odd definitions of things, I guess. Before I looked at Blogcritics a few minutes ago for the first time today, I thought 'some nutty buddy will declare the abuse of prisoners heroism.' Not far from the truth.
As for the gratuitous attacks on other political figures, just because they are Leftist (Castro) or black (Mugabe), it is more piffle. Amnesty International does an excellent job of reporting abuses to prisoners such as electrical shocks. (If the gear was present, chances are very high it was used. The 'just joking' claim is ludicrous.) The regimes those practices are associated with are on the Right. If you want to see human behavior at its worst, review the records of Spain, El Salvador and apartheid South Africa.
6 - felix
It takes a real leap of right-winger logic to try and point the current outrage over prisoner abuse toward left-wing and anti-war advocates.
The only thing the US is accomplishing in Iraq is creating generations of hatred toward ourselves.
And hundreds of thousand of people worldwide knew it would happen, even if the neocons didn't.
7 - mike
Best description of the neocons yet:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_05_02.php#002907
"In the popular political imagination we're familiar
with the neocons as conniving militarists, masters of
intrigue and cabals, graspers for the oil supplies of
the world, and all the rest. But here we have them in
what I suspect is the truest light: as college kid
rubes who head out for a weekend in Vegas, get scammed
out of their money by a two-bit hustler [Chalabi] on
the first night and then get played for fools by a
couple hookers who leave them naked and handcuffed to
their hotel beds.
And just think, it's on your dime and with your
nation's honor -- what an added benefit."
8 - Mac Diva
I believe Bush/Cheney selected Chalabi as puppet leader in Iraq precisely because they already knew he is corrupt.
9 - Shark
Manning bends over backwards to justify--- what?: "The treatment these Iraqi POWs would have received at the hands of Saddam Hussein would have extended way beyond spreading their buttcheeks for the camera."
Manning bends over backwards to show Americans in an admirable light: "...the hooded fellow with wires attached to him? Maddas would have ensured they were live. The Americans never turned on the juice."
Blame those pesky 'liberal's for exaggerating their claims. Lord knows the Bush Junta never exaggerate any of THEIR claims.
PS: Manning, you forgot to blame CLINTON.
Just tryin' to be helpful.
10 - Shark
Shark's Prayer:
"Dear God, if I EVER start justifying, rationalizing, and downplaying torture in order to boost, back, and support my political beliefs and the politicians who expound them -- please strike me dead with a bolt of lightning. Unlike Barger and Manning, I do want to maintain a smidgen of my humanity and integrity. Amen."
11 - Marc
Manning: look closely at the list provided by Roget's, when your done with that you can have a gander at the definition of torture contained in the Geneva Convention. And then get a clue!
Some of you may dismiss the rest of the world over this issue and what they think. But keep this in mind, the US does not live in a vacuum, like it or not we MUST depend on many others to win the WoT. The Sec of State just made a round of calls and visits to a few Muslim nations trying to enlist support in Iraq. How much do you think those photos hurt that attempt?
Source: Roget's "New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.0.5)
Copyright © 2004 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
"abuse, afflict, agonize, annoy, beat, bother, crucify, distress, disturb, excruciate, grill, harrow, impale, injure, irritate, lacerate, maim, mangle, martyr, martyrize, mistreat, mutilate, oppress, pain, persecute, rack, smite, torment, try, upset, whip, wound, wring, wrong"
12 - P6
I think I see the problem.
You identify so strongly with US efforts you say "we." So you need to use a less charged word than "torture" because it doesn't fit your self-image.
I ain't part of no "we" that can do crap like this, so I got no problem at all calling this spade a spade, and these torturers torturers.
13 - Hal Pawluk
Nice insight, P6.
Just before seeing it, I started drafting a blog item on "Defense Mechanisms." I've been trying to figure out why right-wingers support all the failures of this administration and the neocons, and the conclusion I came to was that it was ego protection against facts too strong to admit.
Maybe they'll get real.
Manning? You seem to have been stangely silent.
14 - Harald
I just love the "Saddam was worse so anything up to that level is ok" argument.
/don't know whether to laugh or cry
15 - Eric Olsen
I am defending nothing and identifying with nothing, and at least some of the activity discussed in the post and in the comments easily fits within my definition of "torture."
However, I am surprised but no longer astonished to see such a disconnect between the post and the comments.
The post goes to great lengths to condemn the activity discussed, to say the perpetrators should be dishonorably discharged, etc. Why are all the commenters ignoring that completely and concentrating only on the proposed distinction between "torture" and "treatment"?
16 - HW Saxton Jr.
Had any of these incidents happened to
US soldiers anywhere in the world,this
post would be filled with screams for
vengeance and I doubt anyone would be trying to differentiate between what is
or isn't torture.
17 - Eric Olsen
That is very likely true.
18 - Hal Pawluk
Why are all the commenters ignoring that completely and concentrating only on the proposed distinction between "torture" and "treatment?
Probably because that was the premise on which Manning based his attack on "left-wing" (ignoring those on the right) anti-wars:
Seems clear to me.
19 - Mark Edward Manning
Hal Pawluk: "Manning? You seem to have been stangely silent."
I've said my piece, Hal, and as the comments left here are mostly of the usual leftist crow-pecking variety, I've not been motivated to say more. My post speaks for itself.
If you are referring to the wrongs of the administration, they definitely exist. I'm not happy with Bush on some fronts. But, as far as I'm concerned, he's still the only real option the country's got.
I don't feel the need to justify my grumblings about Bush just to sate yours or anyone else's curiosity. When I've got something negative to say about Bush, I'll say it. Rest assured.
But because I don't criticise Bush for the reasons liberals do doesn't mean I don't have my reservations about him. I do. Again, however, I don't feel the need to prove that to you or anyone else.
Eric Olsen: "However, I am surprised but no longer astonished to see such a disconnect between the post and the comments."
Thanks, Eric. You know, I'm not surprised either.
20 - Hal Pawluk
Mnning: "My post speaks for itself."
Yes it does - a false premise used to launch another baseless attack on those who oppose the invasion and occupation of Iraq (found on both the left and the right sides of the political spectrum).
21 - Mark Edward Manning
Hal: " ... a false premise used to launch another baseless attack on those who oppose the invasion and occupation of Iraq (found on both the left and the right sides of the political spectrum)."
Yes, Hal, that's how YOU have chosen to interpret it. Make of it what you will. I can't help it if you read into my entry only what you want to. But that's your choice.
P.S. I ignore the right anti-wars because I find any conservative who joins forces with the anti-Americans forces of the anti-war movement to be completely risible. They portray a shocking lack of faith in the nation they should, by the mere instinct of being conservative, back to the hilt. The anti-war Right is as pathetic as the Left. And remember, that's just how I choose to interpret these "conservatives."
22 - Hal Pawluk
Manning: "anti-Americans forces of the anti-war movement"
Did you mean "anti-Americans" or "anti-American"?
The "s" changes the meaning in a major way so I want to make sure I understand that you're saying what you meant to say, and it isn't just a typo. (The "s" doesn't really make much sense grammatically, but I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt.)
Thanks.
23 - Hal Pawluk
Manning: "Yes, Hal, that's how YOU have chosen to interpret it."
I don't see that your post requires a lot of interpretation. You clearly said:
Plainly, you're saying that the POW treatment by American forces in Iraq is being used by the anti-war movement as evidence that they were right in their opposition to the war.
Then you say:
Clearly, you're saying that the "treatment" wasn't torture and that it's left-wingers calling it torture.
All wrong.
Your "treatment" was torture, and even murder in some instances.
And it's not only anti-war "left-wingers" objecting to the use of torture by Americans.
The anger and disgust at this torture and murder come from all political stripes in this nation, and from every country around the world.
Attempting to deprecate this response with the taint of politics seems less than admirable, if not "despicable" in its own right.
24 - boomcrashbaby
one thing both the anti-war side and the pro-Bush-way-of-fighting-terror side should consider (and will actually find they probably agree on), can be summed up in one simple question.
And that question should be posed to the Arab world, via Al-Jazeera. How come these photos of a single incident (yes, there were probably more incidents, but these photos aren't over an extended period of time), so how come these photos spark such outrage when for 30 whole years of Saddam's rule, you were silent about the hundreds of thousands who were tortured, gassed and killed?
What this should show the American people is that no matter what we do, good or ill, it will be perceived the same way - negatively. It's NOT the torture they are upset about. It's the Americans. That's all. That's certainly the impression the Arab world is sending, isn't it?
25 - Natalie Davis
BCB, that is a good question for the US administrations that worked with Saddam in the '80s. I have a photo on my wall of Rummy gladhanding with Saddam; it is interesting that Rumsfeld and Co. weren't crying about Saddam's admittedly inhumane acts back then.