Climbing Ladder Creates Risk of Falling
NYT gotcha on Bush admin’s efforts to avoid fighting GWOT with one hand tied behind back closes with this money quote. It’s meant to be probing and ironic, but ironically, not in exactly the way it is:
“The problem is, once you’ve got a legal opinion that says such a technique is O.K., what happens when one of our people is captured and they do it to him? How do we protest then?”
Article neglects to mention we are fighting an enemy that considers powerdrills into kneecaps and videotaped beheading of captives business as usual. That in fact, we have yet to face an enemy in the modern era that observes anything approaching the standards we do. Germany, Japan, North Korea, North Vietnam, Iran, Iraq. Disorientation, isolation, beatings, starvation, summary executions, torture … of the bone-breaking, organ-smashing, electrocuting, bloody-drawing variety.
NYT creates the impression Bushzales completely blew off Congress, Supreme Court and it’s a torturepalooza out there. You need to get seven graphs in to learn that Bush admin ”has responded as a policy matter by dropping the most extreme techniques.” I’m looking forward to the follow-on article: How Osama packed the top ranks of al-Qaeda with toadies who interpreted the Koran to support flying passenger jets into office buildings and planting bombs in marketplaces.
Though not its intent, rambling NYT thumbsucker illustrates the absurdity of war treated like a household ladder or playground equipment, covered with liability-conscious idiotproofing alerts. Also, the paradox of attempting to fight a war to defend our fundamental freedoms when our soldiers, even when acting in good faith and within the law in the face of the enemy, must watch their backs and battle the courts and the media, pillars of a free society that terrorists have successfully sought to use against us.
Topics: GWOT
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 9:57 am on Thursday, October 4, 2007
19 Responses to “Climbing Ladder Creates Risk of Falling”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Web Reconnaissance for 10/04/2007
A short recon of whats out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:51 am
[...] The Carpetbagger Report, The Texas Blue, Norwegianity, Three Wise Men, The Gun Toting Liberal™, Jules Crittenden, Blue Girl, Red State, Macsmind, Lean Left, All Spin Zone, CNN, Bark Bark Woof Woof, Balkinization, [...]
October 4th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
I know every day is a new day for the NYT and libs in general and there is no truth, only cultural differences. So I guess they forgot that our POWs in North Korea and North Vietnam weren’t exactly treated well by their egalitarian friends, in spite of the fact that their’s gained weight. In fact I guess its ironic that the only enemy who ever treated our POWs even close to Geneva Convention standards were the Nazi’s. So if they are hinging their argument on ” turnabout is fair play “, us good guys actually have some catching up to do with regards to abuse of prisoners.
Which brings up another rant. For purposes of pursuing terrorists, the Progressives want them treated as criminals. But for purposes of detention, they want them treated as fully uniformed, insignia’d combatants. Why is that do ya think?
Yes I’m deskbound now, and I’ve never thankfully been a POW. I did attend SERE school as a young Navy man, even got waterboarded (yes you will rat out your own mother). For some reason the Carter administration never interceded on my behalf.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Fixed the money quote:
“The problem is, once you’ve got a legal opinion that says pouring water on someone’s face is O.K., what happens when one of our people is captured and they chop off his head or his genitals are stuffed into his lifeless mouth? How do we protest then?”
Yeah, makes sense.
October 4th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
I’m amazed that even one of the Times’ “journalists” could be that clueless.
October 4th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
“The problem is, once you’ve got a legal opinion that says such a technique is O.K., what happens when one of our people is captured and they do it to him? How do we protest then?”
Well, since you never bothered to protest that before, why would you start now?
October 4th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
When I see them expend 1/10th the energy reporting on the horrors perpetrated by the enemy, then I might give this complaint a second thought.
When I see them expend 1/10th the energy supporting our troops instead of actively seeking any and everything they might use to vilify them, then I might give this complain a first thought.
Otherwise, I’ll continue not giving a rat’s furry behind what they have to say.
October 4th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
you realize, don’t you, that saying “the enemy tortures worse than we do” is not an argument supporting the administration, but rather verification that you have gone off the deep end? You like, know about the constitution and stuff, right? You know, the part where “cruel and unusual punishment” doesn’t have an extra phrase tacked on that says “….unless there are people out there who are really really bad”.?…or are you going to say “the founding fathers would have never said that if they’d known about Al Queda!” and start to use that as the manner in which you will undermine the final vestiges of the constitution that you don’t already ignore. A better Sullivan headline would have been “War Criminals”, as this is surely how history will judge the majority of the current administration. A mere half day in any major country of the world that IS participating in the coalition (uk, poland, take your pick ….) will confirm for you what everybody else on the planet already realizes - George Bush will go down as the worst president in American History.
October 4th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Ummm…don’t we already waterboard and do nasty things to our own people who take SERE training?
October 4th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
[...] Jules Crittenden looks at the leftie slavering overthe latest NYT gotcha on Intense interrogation … “The problem is, once you’ve got a legal opinion that says such a technique is O.K., what happens when one of our people is captured and they do it to him? How do we protest then?” Article neglects to mention we are fighting an enemy that considers powerdrills into kneecaps and videotaped beheading of captives business as usual. [...]
October 4th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Don’t bother trying to tell me about how if we use torture, they will. I defy the reader to tell me in what war in this nation’s entire history of the Geneva conventions were actually followed by the people we were fighting against. You cannot. They never were.
October 4th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
I think Vanguard of the Commentariat goes a little too far in one direction, and bithead a little too far in the other. The Nazis did treat our captured military surprisingly well, considering what beasts they were in most other respects, but I have read that they sometimes pulled Jewish prisoners out of the POW camps and sent them to the gas chambers, which is a pretty big exception, even if it was only done to a small percentage of Jewish POWs. On the other hand, I’ve also read that there has been one war in the last century in which the enemy did generally treat our prisoners with all due consideration: that enemy was Kaiser Wilhelm.
October 4th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
joeadams, you do know, like, that the constitution refers to American citizens, you know, and not our enemies in a war? You do understand, you know, like our Founders, would have, like, killed anyone not in uniform on the spot? I suppose if you are so ignorant of our history and the history of the constitution, that, you know, like, you ought to either inform yourself or shut up.
No, I don’t agree with the practice of torture. I also do not agree that waterboarding, cold, no food, etc., constitute torture.
October 4th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
You missred me Doc W. I am not advocating that sort of activity. I am countering the NYT argument that says if we ignore our values, the enemy will too. They already do and have since the Japanese in WW2, in spite of our consistently upholding our values in the treatment of prisoners. The NYT points its editorial outrage in exactly the wrong direction, as usual.
And I don’t think we should obsess about water boarding and sleep deprivation to get actionable information.
October 4th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
“…what happens when one of our people is captured and they do it to him? How do we protest then?”
You think the guys who have beheaded our soldiers in Iraq, beheaded Daniel Pearl and beheaded/blown up Iraqis too numerous to count are interested in
…bbbalance in the universe ?!?
You think they’re gonna sit around and parse the fine points of the Geneva Conventions ?
October 4th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
[...] Jules Crittenden [...]
October 5th, 2007 at 8:58 am
The Torture Race
Only by frequently defining torture up — but not too far up because we never want to be as bad as they are — can we hope to stay on an almost even playing field with the enemy.
October 5th, 2007 at 10:40 am
“Defining” (and redefining) torture won’t influence the thinking or the behaviors of this enemy one iota.
October 5th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Let me rephrase Saltydog’s astute commentary, in my own words
(usually, set to the tune of “Blowin’ in the Wind”) …
Yes we see right through you and your calls for peace
Right through to your core of disdain
For the principles that have made America great
And the freedom you say you proclaim
If you really want peace, then protest the terrorists
who crash planes and slaughter men like lambs …
Your protests, my friends
Sound much like breaking wind
Your protests sound much like breaking wind