That Dick!

Dick's exact words, taken from his website:

When you read some of the graphic descriptions of what has occurred here -- I almost hesitate to put them in the record, and yet they have to be added to this debate. Let me read to you what one FBI agent saw. And I quote from his report:

On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold....On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor.

If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

-------------
Only a complete psycho (or a desperate partisan) would compare Gitmo to either of those regimes. He'll likely be voted out for that.

The logic of this outcry puzzles me utterly.

The man stands up and names what is happening - kinda like there is an elephant in the room - and the focus for many of you is not the elephant, but whether he described it correctly. You know: "He said it was a bull in musth, and it's only an adolescent bull that hasn't come to sexual maturity!!!"

It's still an elephant.

Ok - his distress and passion (I assume) made him go overboard in his metaphor - which is a pity, since it allows this affair of making so much noise about the metaphor that it detracts from the healthy debate which should be occurring, to go on its weary way.

The fact remains there is an elephant in the room.

The outrage stuff is merely a distraction from dealing with it. (It is de rigeur for some of you always to claim that such outrage is feigned, but I cannot make windows in your souls, so I shall do you the courtesy of believing your outrage to be genuine. Can you, nonetheless, put your emotion aside for a moment and consider the nature of the elephant?)

Now I shall be challenged with great drama and outrage - "Do I think the abuse at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and Afghanistan is as bad as Nazi and Soviet abuse"? - "Do I dare to insult the American military etc etc" (don't know how Pol Pot got in there - but nemmind)

No, clearly it isn't.

But - when you claim to be the bringers of freedom and government accountability and democracy and enlightenment and civilised behaviour to the benighted of the world - you damn well better behave reasonably. Not in a saintly manner - but reasonably. And - you oughta be showing respect for what I believe is one of America's great strengths - which is to have a culture of being prepared to look at itself and what it does very openly.

"Do I think he should have used the comparison?"

No - it was at least a tactical error. It allows this distraction stuff to go on. People tend to use these comparisons when feeling passionate though - look at A2k and the flying of accusations of "Nazi!" "Supporter of terrorists!" Both equally nuts - but hey, life goes on.

It is like this whole, ongoing, drama of "insulting American troops".

American troops are human.

Humans are capable of awful behaviour.

Do some of you believe there is a miraculous process that occurs when Americans put a uniform on that means they will never do anything bad?

Bringing to light abuse committed by some American troops - and American leaders - is not insulting anyone.

Here is an analogy.

Many of the right are very keen on pointing out what they believe was Clinton's bad behaviour.

Does this insult the office of president and the United States government? Ought your voices to be silent?


So - those of you focusing on the metaphor, not the message - what DO you think of the FBI memos on the abuse of some prisoners at Guantanamo?

If they spoke truth (hey - you would be insulting decent Americans to believe they lied, no?) do you support such practices?

Is this how you believe the US should be treating its prisoners?

Excellent post, dlowan IMHO

Actually, I have been pondering it.

Firstly, I now see exactly where Pol Pot came from - so I withdraw my Pol Pot comment.

Secondly - I have had a kind of epiphany thingy - looking at how thin-skinned I have become and how quickly I move to distress and anger when I see the hateful prejudiced stuff that gets posted about Islam in general, just as a for instance, (and other stuff) I got a flash of how some feel when the Nazi thing is said.

Thing is, I read the fella's comments differently - as I see it, he has a vision of his country which the stuff he is reading outrages - it is because he believes America to be essentially a good country, he is especially distressed to see evidence of this sort of behaviour. I think it is because he DOESN'T see America as being like Pol Pot etc (which it clearly isn't) that he has been unwise in his metaphor.

I don't think he is saying America is like these regimes - I think he is saying "Come on guys - we aren't like this - this isn't what we stand for - LOOK at what is happening!"

I understand this - I am far more distressed about Australia's sins than I am about other countries' - so I do not react badly when people refer to our gulag (the detention centres) or the continuing health crisis for Aboriginal people (well, I DO have an atavistic flash of defensiveness and anger sometimes - I wish I could REALLY grow up!).


Anyhoo - 'twould be good to see the elephant for the trees.

As long as it is the elephant that is looked at and not the dung that it leaves behind.

Yeah - I guess I am just saying that I suddenly understood why some are seeing the dung as way dungier than I believe it is.

Discussing the exact treatment of the prisoners would be a lot more forceful if they didn't feel the need to compare it to the worst mass murderers in modern history. Loud rap music IS torture--I wouldn't deny it. However, who will liken it to the murder of 1.6 million?

This is why no one respects Durban and his mentally deficient ilk.

If it's so bad--just use the factual abuse. Why the disgusting hyperbole?

I guess he was trying to make a point. Granted, a very poor use of words and analogy... His point was correct. His way of saying it was not.

Dlowan

Your post was full of self righteous indignation.........Oh the horrors of it, shitting on himself, pulling out his long hair.......horrors........teeth rattling because he was cold.........horrors. When those bastards started flying airplanes into buildings full of civilians, cutting of heads of civilians, they reduced themselves to a subhuman species and I don't give a damn how they are treated. If I thought I could get some actionable information from one of them I would start by blowing off a kneecap. I wouldn't think of mistreating a helpless animal like a dog or a cat........but these bastards don't deserve any sympathy. The were all captured carrying weapons and associating with known taliban........I will accept gult by association as evidence of intent to kill nonbelievers. Deal with them accordingly and spare me the tears. If you had been subjected to wearing a burka and getting whipped by some scumbag with a long beard we wouldn't even be having this insane conversation.

Don't give me any of your indignation rabbit........you are too far from the real world and you certainly have no right to preach to us on how to treat scumbags who were captured trying to kill our troops in Afghanistan. You do realize that not one of the prisoners at Gitmo is from Iraq.......don't you?

Clearly you don't understand the political situation around here. The last senatorial candidate that the Illinois Republican party ran was Alan "God's Crazy Carpetbagger" Keyes. Durbin will most likely win re-election easily.

Kill 'em all, let Allah sort 'em out!

Well. Remember Daschle.

He (Dick) may not lose to a Republican, but the country ( the majority ) I think has had it with extremists. I'm sure there is a sensible Democrat somewhere in Illinois who can take that seat. The Democrats who want to remain in office are sidling up with the GOP. Note Hillary's Rightward shuffle--the excoriation of Dean by Dems--those who are moving away from Dick--

Things are definitely interesting.

But, you are right about one thing. I don't know much about Illinois voting practices--except they are largely controlled by the Dalys. I should catch up on the demographics.

Firstly - no-one with any decency will deny that those who committed the September 11th atrocities deserve to be either executed or kept in prison until they die there. Let's get that out of the way. Those who were in any way connected with the atrocities should be either executed or kept in prison until they die there. Maybe its my background but I want to see every single person who was, in any way, connected to the atrocities to either be executed or to go to prison and to die in prison.

As much as I despise the Taliban let's not forget that they were in power in Afghanistan as at least a de facto if not a de jure government. Afghanistan was attacked by hostile, outside forces in conjunction with rebels. Those people in Guantanamo Bay and in other places were fighting with that government's forces to repel invaders. They are in there because the US took a ham-fisted approach to dealing with the terrorists who committed those aforesaid atrocities. So the people who were defending what is admittedly an odious regime were captured and taken as "unlawful combatants" or whatever fictional legal term the White House/Pentagon is using this week to describe them. And they have been tortured. So far the conspirators have not yet been caught. I want them to be caught, I really want them to be caught. I want them caught, tried and I want to see justice meted out to them as individuals. Torturing a bunch of people in Guantanamo Bay does nothing to put those criminals in a courtroom. In fact it has turned the world against the US. Not very smart. It's like the 600 lb gorilla is on acid or something. Totally irrational.

The US has totally screwed it up. Absolutely screwed it up. The conspirators, the criminals, may be caught but it won't be because of good work, it will be by accident due to the absolutely stupidly dysfunctional responses by the White House and the Pentagon. Worse, the real criminals will likely never be caught due to that stupidity. This is what happens when blind rage and revenge is allowed to drive foreign policy.

Well, we know what Rayban thinks. At least you are honest. I suppose there is something to be said for that.

Just a comment re the real world.

I lost a friend in the World Trade centre - and the children of friends in Bali.

My stepson was in East Timor and will likely end up in Iraq when he finishes his current specialist training.

I have worked with deeply traumatised refugees from Afghanistan and Iran and Iraq - my specialty being trauma.

I do have a teeny idea of what these things mean.

What has that to do with how your, or my, country treats prisoners?

Normally I do not utter such details not germane to the conversation - what geography or any other context of mine has to do with with how America treats its prisoners I do not quite know - but Rayban's ignorance warranted some response.

Well, probably it didn't and doesn't.

Nemmind.

I deleted this it was a bit too light-hearted.

I sometimes wonder if these people think one is a rabbit.

And I think you ought rather to describe yourself as a crow.

Nah not a crow - more of a bulldog

Sorry it looks all out of context I deleted my original message.

Goodfielder and Dlowan

You both had pertinent and well founded comments deserving of attention but the fact remains you are both very critical of our "Ham fisted" approach to the problem. Perhaps if both of you would "try" to put yourselves in the position of the guys involved, perhaps you could "monday morning quarterback" and tell us what you would have done and when you would have done it. It should be easy now that we know the consequences.

I think we deserve serious answers from both of you.

I am particularly interested in the way you would have dealt with the prisoners and what legal status you would have accorded them.

1. Would you have declared them POWs, entitled to all the privileges of POWs even though they did not wear uniforms.

2. Where would you have detained them and in what kind of facility?

3. Would you have questioned them?

4. If they were declared POWs, how long would you hold them?

5. What kind of guards would you use or would you just let them go?

These are fair questions and deserve serious answers since you seem to be the keepers of all moral values perhaps you will enlighten us callous, ham fisted mortals.

Of course I expect you to beg off on grounds that it is beyond the boundaries of this thread..........if that is the case, perhaps Lash would consent to expanding those boundaries?

the prisoners need to be charged with a crime. formally.

while the administration toys around with semantics, america is losing it's moral high ground.

it's time to quit playing games with this stuff. charge 'em or cut 'em loose. if ya find 'em coming at ya again... blow 'em away.

Not at all - though I doubt you have read my comments, since you appear to go off on a number of tangents I never mentioned.

My criticism here was of abuse of prisoners such as that described in the FBI memos - and I have been critical of stuff like that revealed into the military's own invesigation into prisons in Afghanistan and Abu Ghraib.

But the answer is simple.

I would have expected that the USA would treat its prisoners in accord with its own laws and the international treaties it has signed onto and questioned them accordingly. You appear to have laws about what degree of duress is allowed. I propose that they be obeyed.

POW's/not POW's? I do not know - I am not a lawyer, though I have read various opinions about their status. I assume the US has laws and treaty obligations about both types of prisoner? I also assume that a facility like Guantanamo violates these - or it would not have been necessary to attempt to create a legal no-man's-land. I would advocate, again, that the US obeys its own laws and traty obligations in regard to their status and treatment.

How long to keep them? If they are POW's - one assumes that when a war is over there are guidelines about this. Is the war in Afghanistan declared to be over? Then obey your own laws re this.

If they are suspected terrorists - try them. I would have thought that stuff like access to the charges against them and stuff like that would be a reasonable beginning to such trials. Again, you guys have laws and regulations and a whole justice system. You have tried terrorists before. Use your laws.

What type of guards? Ones who obey your laws and regulations about their conduct. Isn't that generally expected of guards? All guards, everywhere, in my experience (in direct form, this is with civilian prisons) have a percentage who will abuse. The job of prison management is to ensure that this is limited, and wrong-doers punished.

(Interestingly, your own laws appear to be gradually encroaching into what is happening at Guantanamo. I note that the military tribunals, for instance, while still not meeting standards (which I understand to be excellent, having been worked on very hard by your own military legal folk, who protested about the processes envisaged for Guantanamo of normal US military tribunals, are now a little closer to normal.)

I would assume that none of your laws would would excuse the types of abuse that have occurred at times (I do not know how much and how often at Guantanamo)

I am interested that you persistently appear to regard criticism of abuse as preachy and a moral high ground. Why? What is it about people expressing opinions about prisoner abuse that engenders your rage? Is it also thus when you criticise the abuses of other countries?

You clearly hold the view that torture is permissible - what engenders such rage when others disagree?

What is your assumption that we are "the other guy"? Are you thinking of 9/11? That was a spectacular and horrific terror attack. Many countries have experienced terror attacks, though, and have had to grapple with dealing with it, and with how to view justice and counter-terrorism. Many have similarly by-passed their own legal processes in an attempt to do so. Britain is still dealing with the legal sequelae of this - and with having wrongfully imprisoned a number of people for many years. There is an ongoing debate about this - as there was in Germany when Bader-Meinhof etc waged terror campaigns. Thailand is fighting what is beginning to look like a possible Muslim insurgency and is experiencing a terror campaign. These ar ejust a couple of examples. You are not alone in having to deal with terror - many countries have been doing it for years.

What is different about you guys?

You may note that my initial post here was simply about not focusing on the being pissed off about the messenger's garb, but having a healthy debate in your government organs about what was happening in America's detention facilities. Do you object to such a debate?

We live next door to the largest Muslim country in the world - and one where - (especially post-Iraq) - pro-terror feeling is growing. I fully expect a terror campaign here in years to come.

Our complements in Iraq (though in Iraq against majority public opinion) and Afghanistan are doubtless in many ways of more political than practical use to the USA and great Britain - nonetheless they are there. A couple of our people got tainted by their actions in relation to Abu Ghraib - and an Oz SAS soldier in East Timor was accused of an atrocity (though the alleged victim was already dead.) I think there's a bit of us there, you know.

You guys are the only super-power - that is special - and because of your power you are on the pointy hard end of this. Otherwise I thought that we were all on the planet together - and all likely victims of global terrorism? I would have thought an international problem worthy of international debate.

There IS a debate about legal responses to terror - about how and to what extent laws should be shaped to fight it. I think it is a healthy one.

Now - how would you answer your owm questions?