Comments on: Time to repeal Godwin’s Law ?

By: pepi

pepi — Wed, 12 May 2004 20:46:35 +0000

So, Amiel is a crook. Who’d have thought. Her columns spoke of such impeccable ethical principles…

By: push

push — Wed, 12 May 2004 19:32:38 +0000

some of you may be glad to know some respite is at hand… http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1215217,00.html

By: a

Wed, 12 May 2004 14:36:11 +0000

The new version of Godwins Law has to be related to how long in a thread it takes before someone starts talking about the end of the world: (lileks.com) The West doesn’t have the power to change Islam; it only has the power to destroy it. We have a lot of nukes. We could kill everyone. We could just take out a few troublesome nations, kill millions, and irradiate Mecca so that the Fifth Pillar is invalidated. The hajj would be impossible. Every pilgrim a martyr. I don’t think we’ll do either; God help us if we do, but inasmuch as we have the capability, it’s an option. But it would be a crime greater than the crime that provoked such an act, and in the end that would stay our hand. They know we won’t do it….There is another path, of course. Simply put: if a US city is nuked, the US will have to nuke someone, or let it stand that the United States can lose a city without cost to the other side. Defining “the other side” would be difficult, of course – do you erase Tehran to punish the mullahs? Make a crater out of Riyahd? These are exactly the sort of decisions we never want to make. But let’s say it happens. Baltimore: fire and wind. Gone. That horrible day would clarify things once and for all. It’s one thing for someone in a distant city to cheer the fall of two skyscrapers: from a distance, it looks like a bloody nose. But erasing a city is a different matter. Everyone will have to choose sides. That would be one possible beginning of the end of this war. Great, Yippee, Nuclear Fallout, Yummy, hmmm…now we need to make sure that the command of the nukes is not in the hands of the same people who run the prisons. But it would be a crime greater than the crime that provoked such an act, and in the end that would stay our hand …did you really need to have to say it, like it might not be true?

By: Jack

Jack — Wed, 12 May 2004 10:00:12 +0000

Bryan, basically Ted Rall got pulled up for breaching Godwin’s law a couple of days ago. Reading this discussion it looks like he was just ahead of his time. My target is the attack on Ted Rall which was overdone, not you or the original post.

By: pepi

pepi — Wed, 12 May 2004 08:01:16 +0000

sorry, forgot the link to the article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19207-2004May11.html It also contains a handy short summary of how the Geneva Convention applies:

The Third Geneva Convention, which applies to prisoners of war and captured insurgents, says that they “may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind” as a way to make them answer questions. The Fourth Geneva Convention, which covers people under foreign occupation, says “no physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against” them, “in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties.”

In case you (dan simon) were referring to that internal ‘disagreement’ on how sleep deprivation and other techniques approved by the US are a violation of the convention – that’s still not the same as saying the torture cases themselves were allowed by the GC, cos no one is bloody saying that. Not even those who don’t acknowledge even the approved tactics were NOT ok by the GC. It’s a really simple concept, if you’d followed yesterday’s debate you’d have understood it. But hey, you can still catch up.

By: pepi

pepi — Wed, 12 May 2004 07:52:44 +0000

and dan, just in case you missed the reports about yesterday’s hearing: Mr. Cambone assured the Senate Armed Services Committee that the administration’s policy had always been to strictly observe the Geneva Conventions in Iraq; that all procedures for interrogations in Iraq were sanctioned under the conventions; and that the abuses of detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison were consequently the isolated acts of individuals. Then of course, the problem is that… These assertions are contradicted by International Red Cross and Army investigators, by U.S. generals overseeing the prisoners, and by Mr. Cambone himself. But you know, contrary to what you’re saying, no one in the administration has been currently disputing the application of the Convention to these cases. So I don’t know where you pulled that belief of yours that it doesn’t apply. Perhaps you were thinking of Guantanamo?

By: pepi

pepi — Wed, 12 May 2004 07:42:29 +0000

dan simon: sorry? Shouldn’t you be asking Bush or Rumsfeld or anyone in the administration or military? Actually they’ve already replied to that question. They have acknowledged the Geneva convention does apply to this case. They said the military was specifically instructed to follow the convention – which clearly wasn’t true for the abusers, but seems to be in general for everyone else. One of the generals from command yesterday replied they do welcome the Red Cross investigating more into it. The Red Cross is the organisation checking that the Convention is implemented. Etc. etc. So it looks like the very people you claim to be supporting are acknowledging (bit late, but better late that never!) that the Geneva Convention does protect precisely those kind of prisoners of war too. Or combatants. Or whatever you want to call them. I don’t know where you derive your belief that it is otherwise, but, if you have any quarrel with any of that, please address your complaints to the government and the military leadership. —Also, I’m still wondering how you managed to miss that part of Amiel’s article where she explains why that lady needed to be handcuffed (it’s quoted right at the top of this post, see, up there?) and asks, If a 97-year-old woman is handcuffed for a traffic offence, what is the appropriate procedure for murderous guerrillas? I’m sure it’s just gross misreading of her sincere concerns for legality, to assume she’s implying something of an apology for the torture-mentality, if not for the torture itself.

By: Dan Simon

Dan Simon — Tue, 11 May 2004 20:08:37 +0000

Pepi, I am under the impression that the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly limits the class of combatants it protects in a way that would clearly exclude most of the irregulars captured in Iraq. Is that incorrect?

By: Dan Simon

Dan Simon — Tue, 11 May 2004 20:01:13 +0000

John, I once again can’t fathom how you’ve managed to interpret Amiel’s words the way you have. Her clear, unequivocal point—as demonstrated by the very passages you quote—is that the terrible images of torture coming out of Iraq are being used to cast aspersions on Rumsfeld, his administration, and America in general that she believes are unfair because the behavior in the images was “rogue” behavior, not sanctioned behavior. She repeatedly concedes that the documented brutalities were inexcusable—and goes on at length about how little supervision and control was exercised over those responsible. Her conclusion is that this was a specific managerial slip-up, not a general moral collapse. Meanwhile, she asserts, the practices that were widespread, systematic and sanctioned were far milder, morally defensible, and unfairly conflated with the practices documented in the shocking pictures. Now, my point here is not to support or defend Amiel’s opinion—I frankly neither know nor care much whether her interpretation of events is correct, and I’m perfectly ready to see her claims of non-culpability at the top of the hierarchy completely demolished. It’s also entirely fair to criticize the moral distinctions she makes between the practices that she believes were sanctioned and those she believes were never sanctioned. But at the very least she deserves to have her own position correctly and fairly represented.

By: Jonathan Edelstein

Jonathan Edelstein — Tue, 11 May 2004 16:38:59 +0000

And, gosh, isn’t it curious that so many of the privately-contracted interrogators in Iraq got instruction in Israeli-style techniques? Which are also British-style, South African-style and lots-of-other-countries-style techniques. There’s only a certain amount of inventiveness in torture, and certain themes – such as simulated sexual abuse, sleep deprivation and standing in uncomfortable positions – are pretty universal. The techniques in question could as easily have been taught by any of the South African mercs on-scene or by British soldiers with Northern Ireland experience. Not that I expect this to convince any of the people who like to put a handy “Made in Israel” label on anything that goes wrong in the Middle East.

By: bryan

bryan — Tue, 11 May 2004 12:06:59 +0000

‘Bryan, quite. See the discussion here.’ oh i see, Ted Rall is against torture and I’m against torture therefore i’m Ted Rall. it’s all so clear to me now. especially the part of all that deals with you.

By: pepi

pepi — Tue, 11 May 2004 10:54:04 +0000

John Quiggins: Exactly – the transparent use of that “this will help the enemy” line of defense in order to minimize the scandal is one of the most amazing things in that kind of apology/damage control “arguments”. Sort of like Rumsfeld talking to Congress and Senate, insisting so much on the pictures being leaked. As if they were the main problem here. The digital camera, the real enemy. “There’s worse to come”… worse pictures, of course. Oh, and videos too.

By: pepi

pepi — Tue, 11 May 2004 10:38:38 +0000

dan, echoing John Quiggin’s questions (and mine) again – please, do point out which specific instances you (or Amiel, according to you) consider “ambiguous” rather than clearly falling into the definition of torture. Also, please point out why your own (or Amiel’s) uncertainty whether to call something torture or not should be more relevant than specific laws and conventions that the US adheres to. Especially after both Bush and Rumsfeld now have been forced to acknowledge the Geneva convention is actually valid in respect those ambiguously undefined non-war-prisoners too. Or should your personal doubts on definitions of torture count more than those laws? Of course Amiel is not directly condoning torture. Of course she is condemning it. Should we give her a pat on the back for that? It’s a crime! It’s obviously not condonable. But she, and you, are finding ways to excuse its occurring at all, to blur its definition, to “contextualize” and bring ambiguity where there is none*. That’s a way of making apologies for what happened. She is saying humiliation is necessary sometimes. How is that not an apology? A very sick and ambiguous one too, since she asks “if we handcuff old ladies for driving violations, what should we do with terrorists” – instead of saying exactly what she has in mind there. At the very least, she is excusing the ideological premises on which that abuse took place, even if she’s not embracing what it led to. That’s a very dodgy position position. It is obviously apologetic. (*if you think there is ambiguity, again, please point to the specific instance in the report that might be considered acceptable prison practice, and please point out on what basis it is acceptable, ie. according to which law or convention or human rights declaration – not according to personal definitions or opinions)

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Tue, 11 May 2004 10:22:58 +0000

Dan, if you’re in any doubt about the torture value of mock executions, I suggest you read accounts of prisoners. This is an item that’s mentioned in almost every case, often in ways that convey far more horror than brutal beatings. When you’ve made up your made on that point, go back to Amiel’s opening paras: “This week’s Economist cover screams, “Resign, Rumsfeld”. With the tide of condemnation over American mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq and the charge that it will be a “permanent stain on America for years to come” (sic), the events at Abu Ghraib jail in Baghdad seem a story judged. The admonition of the Economist leader that “the pictures of abuse, especially the one… of the hooded man wired as if for electrocution, stand an awful chance of becoming iconic images that could haunt America for years…” shows how news organisations are doing their damnedest to make sure just that happens. The iconic photo takes up the entire cover of the Economist.” She makes it absolutely clear that the purpose of her piece is to argue that this piece of torture is not nearly as bad as The Economist (still a pro-war journal) makes out. Moreover, by reporting it prominently, she implies, The Economist is playing into the hands of the enemy. This is, as you must surely be aware, the oldest trick in the book for defenders of torture, used to great effect by Stalin in particular. Her formulaic copouts “Torture is reprehensible in any event” and so on are the kind of thing you would dismiss out of hand if they were put up in the course of an apologia for Saddam, and they should be dismissed here. Since you raised the point of partisanship, I’ll ask if you’re not defending Amiel on partisan grounds of your own. As I said, I had never heard of her when I wrote my post – is the same true for you?

By: Dan Simon

Dan Simon — Tue, 11 May 2004 09:27:12 +0000

John, I’m actually not yet entirely certain about the first, but I’d definitely consider the latter two to be well beyond the pale in terms of treatment of prisoners. However, the claim Amiel seems to be making (and I admit I don’t know if it’s accurate or not) is that this type of egregious act was in any event way out of line by the military’s own standards, and was from the beginning subject to investigation and punishment—unlike lesser forms of “pressure” (Amiel mentions sleep deprivation, for instance), which were more widespread, and more accepted, practices. She further argues that some polemics in the wake of the torture scandal have conflated these two classes of case, accusing the military hierarchy of condoning the very worst abuses as a matter of policy (or else simply eliding the possibility that anyone could have made any distinction between the two classes of practice). Once again, I can certainly understand you disagreeing with Amiel’s position on this issue. And a healthy debate on it properly includes at least some hard-line opposition to all harsh treatments. But arguing forcefully against Amiel’s position is very different from distorting or dismissing it. The former is a productive contribution to the debate; the latter is not.