If you've ever read James Jones's 'From Here To Eternity', which readers and writers at the time (it was published in 1953) lauded as the one American book that truly captured the American condition of the early Forties, you might not be so certain of your idea of 'the American model'.

Jones's 1941 brig at Schofield Barracks is rather exactly the prison and prison system we have now at Guantanamo Bay and on aircraft carriers.  This stuff is American.

To be blunt, there are two versions of 'the American model' of incarceration.  You are thinking of a post-Civil Rights era kind.  Our Republican colleagues remember, and maintain, and are reimplementing, the kind that preceded it.

I see the present as a long learning process for the American people, in which the society is faced with a hard choice between adopting the 14th Amendment in earnest as a society or abject failure- a succumbing to contradictions- as a social enterprise in the Modern world.  

As a motif, our recalcitrance and escapisms (into mythologies, like the one indirectly embraced here that pre-Civil Rights American society was an exemplary, i.e. humane, one) are leading to object lessons in every realm of American life, to concrete demonstrations of the price of justice and governance to a lower standard than what the 14th Am demands in every sector.  Guantanamo.  Church/State separation.  Gay rights.  Race.  Abortion.  Workers' rights and dignity.  Partisan privilege.  Double standards-nonequality- in everything.

I think it's still true, and will remain true so long as we're rich and powerful.  It's just that the "American model" may be broadened to include a bit more dishonesty and torture.  In particularly cynical moments can imagine a world in which the model country is a totalitarian state loudly proclaiming its love of freedom, sort of a "say as I say, do as I do" expansion of American values.

America's credibility already is undermined by some of our responses to 9/11.  The world felt revulsion in the wake of 9/11.  We were supported by the world community (generally speaking) in our invasion of Afghanistan.  Osama planned the attack and the Taliban in Afghanistan were protecting him so much of the world felt the invasion was justified.  But once we invaded Iraq any world empathy quickly disappeared.  Our invasion of Iraq and torture at Gitmo, Iraq and Afghanistan was viewed by the rest of the world with almost the same revulsion for the 9/11 attacks.  America has a tradition of representing (in a world view) freedom, democracy and the rule of law.  Bush has undermined our moral standing in the world and our ability to be an effective moral compass.  China, India and other countries are exerting their will on the world community more and more at the expense of diminished US influence.  To me, this above all will be Bush's legacy...

You wrote ... "Although I can't say that I'm a fan of torture I would rather dicusss the hypotheticals about when we could see it necessary that trying to pretend that we would never use it."

America should never use torture under any circumstances. Period.

I posted this under Anne-Marie's comment, but given that that discussion has devolved into a quarrel about whether or not Juan Cole is an anti-semite, I'm reposting it here, where hopefully the discussion stays at a higher level.

A few reasons why all Americans should be concerned about the methods employed at Gitmo, Bagram, and elsewhere:

1. Rule of law. One of the many things that makes America a great country is our belief in the rule of law. Generally, the laws governing detainees in this country envision two types of detainee: criminal and prisoner of war. The rules governing the treatment of both are very clear. Coercive interrogation of any sort is impermissible for criminal detainees because the fifth amendment gives them the right to remain silent. POWs, as I understand it, can be interrogated, but only in accordance with the strict rules of the Geneva Conventions (which have the force of law in the US because we are parties to the treaty establishing them). The detainees at places like Gitmo have been classified (by the President) as "enemy combatants," a third category that is at best murky. Most disturbing, the rules governing the detention of these so-called enemy combatants are not clarified in law--and the President has claimed an extraordinary power to simply make up the rules as we go.  Those who accept the concept of limited government (which means the government can act only if given authority to act by laws duly passed in accord with the constitution) and the rule of law should be disturbed when the President claims such extraordinary extra-legal powers. It is worth noting that the Constitution clearly gives congress the power "to make rules concerning captures on land and sea." Any strict constructionist, therefore, cannot legitimately argue that the President as commander and chief somehow has this power. The constitution clearly states otherwise.

2. Due process. Related to rule of law is the concept of due process. We believe that before any one is subjected to the strong arm of government power (deprived of life, liberty, or property), some legally defined process must be followed to ensure the person is indeed in a category where it is legitimate for the government to deprive that person of life, liberty, or property. There is no clear due process for the detainees in Gitmo, and this should be troubling to all Americans. The possibility of detaining innocent people indefinitely--and particularly submitting them to harsh treatment--shouldn't be tolerated--even in wartime.

3. The "shining city on a hill" ideal. Americans like to think of themselves as a special nation--setting an example for the rest of the world. While some may call this arrogant, it also expresses a sincere desire to be good. If we are going to live up to this ideal, we must maintain the absolutely highest standards. Arguments that what we do at Gitmo are justified because they aren't as bad as what the terrorists do are simply unacceptable if we are to be that shining city. Yes, the terrorists may be far worse than we are. But so what? Our standard of behavior is not simply to be better than the worst--it's to be the best. To live up to our ideals, then, we need to hold ourselves to excessively high standards--even if it may mean sacrificing our safety at times. But a people who rallied around the cry "give me liberty or give me death," don't place their personal security above their ideals. Maybe I live too close to the New Hampshire border, but "live free or die" seems far more patriotic and far more courageous to me than "sacrifice some liberty and principle for safety."

The torture has been well documented by Amnesty International, the FBI and our own military.

Is this the way you support our troops? By apologizing for torture?

Let's hope if and when our troops are captured, they are not subjected to the kind of treatment you think is not a problem.

I agree, but your thought is incomplete.  It has also been proven time and again that treating prisoners with humanity is the fastest most efficient means of getting the information.  It simply needs people trained to do so. This was once known and taught in our military.  What happened? Torture, as you can see by most of the postings of those that seem to condone it, is a frustrated emotional response from weak individuals.  It is anger that seeks revenge or to show power and superiority over the individual.  And that in itself is a pretty good definition of terrorism.  I would not want to become my enemy.
dc

"See photos here if you think you can stomach it."

I am not impressed by the fact that some national guard troops engaged in the unauthorized and abberant abuse of prisoners.  That is irrelevant to the charge that "Bush smeared American values by engaging in torture."

Again, the left is seeking moral equivalence between the United States and its enemies.  If you want to know what torture looks like, watch Al Jazeera.

Here's Lindsey Graham:

"'The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here. We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience,' Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record) of South Carolina told reporters after Rumsfeld testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. 'We're talking about rape and murder -- and some very serious charges.'

We have violated Geneva Conventions. However you want to call it, fine.

But you're just being ignorant if you actually believe we haven't tortured. The Pentagon will not let the photos be shown. One day they will be.

You are an apologist for torture.

" So it was just a few kids from Appalachia in a National Guard unit acting up on their own?"

At Abu Gahrib?  Yes.  There's been nothing of the sort at Gitmo and nothing at Abu Gahrib since.  You people keep talking about "torture" at Gitmo and "torture" generally as Administration policy.  You claim it has been documented.  If so, then document it.  Since you haven't done it yet, I assume you can't.  You're nothing but a bunch of bed-wetters who think our enemies will go away if America just "plays nice" like your teachers taught you in kindergarten.

"Maybe that's why the White House is threatening to veto legislation which would put legal safeguards in place against torture?"

Or maybe it just doesn't think Congress ought to meddle in what is an Executive function. 

I got a lot of flack for my comment, and I expected that I would. Now their can be an arguement made that torture really doesn't provide people with the necessary advantage to gain inteligence as davcbr mentions. Now I don't know if this is true, I hope it would be true, but some how I don't find it that believable. For cscs stating that we shoud follow the Geneva convention so that our enemies would do that same is not a great arguement in this particular instance. To think that many terrorists would care much about the geneva convention when deciding whether or not to torture an American soldier is quite ridiculous. And if you some how you believe that most terrorists would care about the Geneva convention, what about the few that don't. Is it all right for us to torture enemies who torture our soldiers? Do we have to wait for the other side to intiate torture? Now to poise a pose an intresting hypothetical: What if a man was left with a terrorist whom he was sure had information on a bomb that would kill thousands, the terrorist was not talking. The man was Dan Wingfoot who obviously disliked torture under any circumstance, but yet he knew some techniques for torture nonetheless. Wouldn't it be selfish of this man not to inflict pain on another to save the lives of thousands just because it would break his moral code? Aren't the lives of many innocents more important even if it meant that this man had to do something that would damn him? Wouldn't the selfless act actually be to extrapolate the information out of him by any means necessary? Now of course many of you will say that we do not live in a time like this, or some how my hypothetical is not realistic. Hypotheticals are not meant to be only realistic situations, but rather they are there to test the extremes of our thoughts and our feelings. If we can find one situation in which we woud see torture as necessary can we truly think that in can never be used under any circumstances?

Again, the left is seeking moral equivalence between the United States and its enemies.



I beg your pardon, but that is not at all what the left is doing.  The left wants to see our government - yes, WBC, it is ours, too - stand up with morals and principles of its own, and proclaim to the world that we will not use cruel methods like those pictured.  Americans are better than that, whether you think so or not, and our government should represent the good that is in the hearts of Americans.  

"It is anger that seeks revenge or to show power and superiority over the individual. And that in itself is a pretty good definition of terrorism."

Whoa! We do have to be a little careful with our definitions.

Political party leaders will assign party members who do not toe the party line to the subcommittee evaluating urinal standards to show power and superiority over that subordinate individual. That does not make them terrorists.

Likewise, I think the "torture" debate gets muddied up in the definition of torture. I think most people think of torture as the infliction of excruciating pain, yet torture can be defined as depriving someone of sleep or forcing them to listen to classical music 24/7.

I doubt if most people would object to depriving someone of sleep IF that were an effective interrogation technique, but most would object to physical torture even if attempting to determine the location of a nuclear weapon.

The left naturally wants to make the administration look as bad as possible, so they throw around the work "torture" as often as possible knowing how it will be received, then send out a U.S. Senator to equate the U.S. treatment of prisoners to Nazi death camps, providing the middle east press with juicy sound bites.

"It is anger that seeks revenge or to show power and superiority over the individual. And that in itself is a pretty good definition of terrorism."

Whoa!  We do have to be a little careful with our definitions.  

Political party leaders will assign party members who do not toe the party line to the subcommittee evaluating urinal standards to show power and superiority over that subordinate individual.  That does not make them terrorists.

Likewise, I think the "torture" debate gets muddied up in the definition of torture.  I think most people think of torture as the infliction of excruciating pain, yet torture can be defined as depriving someone of sleep or forcing them to listen to classical music 24/7.

I doubt if most people would object to depriving someone of sleep IF that were an effective interrogation technique, but most would object to physical torture even if attempting to determine  the location of a nuclear weapon.

The left naturally wants to make the administration look as bad as possible, so they throw around the work "torture" as often as possible knowing how it will be received, then send out a U.S. Senator to equate the U.S. treatment of prisoners to Nazi death camps, providing the middle east press with juicy sound bites.

WBC wrote:

Torture would be something like systematic beatings, starvation, refusal of medical attention, electric shock, or other similar methods designed to injure or inflict unbearable pain.  Nothing like that has been "documented" by Amnesty International or anyone else.

In fact, Amnesty International has documented precisely this behavior.  Consequently, WBC is either ignorant or a liar - or, more probably, an ignorant liar.  For example, in a report titled Torture and accountability in the `war on terror' Amnesty International wrote:

In Iraq, Dilar Dababa died in a classified interrogation facility in Baghdad on 13 June 2003, and his death certificate was signed on 14 May 2004. He died of "closed head injury with a cortical brain contusion and subdural hematoma." According to Pentagon documents obtained by the Denver Post, while in custody he "was subjected to both physical and psychological stress". He was handcuffed to a chair and the chair secured to a pipe in the room because he was allegedly combative and an escape risk.

Three of the death certificates released by the Pentagon were of deaths of Afghan nationals in US custody in Afghanistan. One was of Dilawar, who died in the US air base in Bagram on 10 December 2002 from "blunt force injuries to lower extremities complicating coronary artery disease". His death certificate was signed on 20 May 2004. He was one of two Afghan men - the other being Mullah Habibullah (named on the death certificate as "Ullah, Habib" - to have died from blunt force injuries in Bagram in December 2002. Mullah Habibullah was allegedly beaten by a US soldier while in restraints. Dilawar was allegedly subjected to prolonged forced standing, while shackled and with his hands chained above his shoulders. Both men were beaten by "multiple soldiers", mainly on the legs possibly so that fewer wounds would be visible.

According to Department of Defense documents obtained by the Denver Post newspaper, `Abd Hamad Mawhoush had turned himself in to the US authorities in November. After two weeks in custody, "two soldiers with the 66th Military Intelligence Company slid a sleeping bag over his body, except for his feet, and began questioning him as they rolled him repeatedly from his back to his stomach... Then one of the soldiers, an interrogator, sat on Mawhoush's chest and placed his hands over the prisoner's mouth". It was during this interrogation that the prisoner "became non-responsive". According to the Pentagon documents, the two soldiers received reprimands and were barred from further interrogations.

Is this enough for you to accept that the US personnel have committed acts of torture?

The answer is, of course, no.  The reality is that WBC is a moral degenerate who brings dishonor and disgrace on the US and its military by deliberately ignoring hideous crimes committed by US personnel.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR511452004

"I beg your pardon, but that is not at all what the left is doing."

Oh, give me a break.  The whole Abu Gahrib "scandal" involved a single incident of the abuse of perhaps 20 prisoners on a single evening in which there were no serious injuries inflicted and the highest ranking U.S. serviceman involved was a sergeant.  The "left" has used it to impugn the integrity of the entire armed forces and the Adminsitration even though it was promptly discovered and the perpetrators prosecuted.  You hand-wringing pseudo moralists are beneath contempt.

" So it was just a few kids from Appalachia in a National Guard unit acting up on their own?"

At Abu Gahrib?  Absoulutely.  The incident occurred in a single evening.  The highest ranking serviceman involved was a sergeant.  The perpetrators were promptly prosecuted. Nothing analogous has happened at Gitmo.  But that doesn't stop you people from slandering the entire war effort.

It will take a long time, both in Iraq and elsewhere, but we will win this war.  You people won't be much help in the process. 

WBC wrote:

The incident occurred in a single evening.  The highest ranking serviceman involved was a sergeant. The perpetrators were promptly prosecuted.

This is a LIE.

Amnesty International has reported torture across all theaters of the so-called "global war on terror."  Amnesty wrote the following to describe its concern about the poor quality of the torture investigations:

The cases of deaths in US custody during the "war on terror" provide more evidence of a widespread problem of torture and ill-treatment, including denial of medical care. Investigations have been slow, autopsies and documentation have been less than stringently applied and officials have been quick to suggest natural causes. Progress in investigations and prosecutions appears to have been more a result of an increased responsiveness following the Abu Ghraib scandal than an inherent willingness to bring swift, transparent and firm action to bear in such cases. The US government has been accused of not taking seriously the killing of civilians in the wider war - for example, by not keeping a count of such deaths. This attitude appears to have infected the official approach to deaths in custody as well.

This Nation needs to scourge its soul of the hideous tortures committed in its name.  It is clear that a fully-independent investigation will be needed to investigate these war crimes - the responsibility for which spreads from a "few rotten apples on the late shift," through all the personnel who tortured and murdered detainees up to those ultimately responsible for the torture policy - Bush, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Bybee, and Yoo.  It is they, and their supporters, who have betrayed the many fine and brave soldiers who risked their lives while others betrayed their morality.

Morally-degenerate fools, like WBC, who defend the torture by pretending it did not happen have betrayed the US and the US military.  They deserve our condemnation.

We can settle this once and for all. Mossback, you and Robert Brown, and WBC - if you are not all the same person - could volunteer to go to Gitmo and allow the interrogators to use on you those "techniques" as shown in the pictures and described by witnesses.  You would become the authorities on the subject of just what is torture and what is not.  Then you could come back and tell us all about it and have the final word.  And you would really help the troops and discourage recruitment of jihadists by letting the whole world know that the US doesn't do torture, because you have been there and you know.

Gee, maybe it will even be like It's a Wonderful Life and an angel will get its wings every time one of the "techniques" is tried on you.

Rape and murder, rather, not rape and torture. The very fact that we have to use these terms in regards to the American government and military sickens me...I want a country our children can be proud of, not one that does things that they cover up, so they won't get in trouble.

"You would become the authorities on the subject of just what is torture and what is not. Then you could come back and tell us all about it and have the final word."

This is really quite silly.

One does not have to experience something to define what it is.  In fact, it probably distorts the definition.  If I were forced to have sex with another man, for example, I would probably come back screaming "torture".  But, I think most people would think I had been embarrassed or humiliated, not tortured is the sense that the word "torture" evokes in the context of a prison camp.

Now, it is perfectly legitimate to define something that is humiliating or uncomfortable as "torture".  What the left has been very clever at doing is lumping everything from discomfort to abuse under the definition of  "torture" in the prison camp context, knowing that this will evoke images of cruel guards doing unspeakable things to inflict excruciating pain in the minds of the majority of people.  This coupled with sending a U.S. Senator out to legitimize that impression by equating U.S. prison camps to Nazi death camps has been a very successful propaganda campaign I must admit.

If I were forced to have sex with another man, for example, I would probably come back screaming "torture".  But, I think most people would think I had been embarrassed or humiliated, not tortured is the sense that the word "torture" evokes in the context of a prison camp.

We're not talking about you being forced to accept a blowjob from some Andy Sullivan type.  We're talking about teenage boys being sodomised, sometimes repeatedly, sometimes with foreign objects, until their rectums are ripped and bleeding.  This can sometimes lead to death.  It is not to be dismissed as some frat-house prank.

Be honest.  You and your fellow trolls have been so terrified by 9/11 that you would condone ANY torture if you thought it would help protect you.  You are so driven by fear that you'd junk every principle, every freedom that American patriots from Valley Forge to Iwo Jima died for.  You are quite simply not fit to call yourself an American.

"We're talking about teenage boys being sodomised, sometimes repeatedly, sometimes with foreign objects, until their rectums are ripped and bleeding."

IF this really happened and it is not just leftist wishful thinking, it is a criminal act that should be prosecuted.  It is unfair (although an effective propaganda technique) to project that behavior as policy of the U.S. government.

There is a range of treatment from discomfort through humiliation and abuse to outright physical torture, all of which I am sure Amnesty International would classify as torture, all of which should not be disallowed depending upon the circumstances.  

I don't think it would be wrong to subject a prisoner to discomfort if there was a reasonable chance of getting good intelligence.  Subjecting him to abuse or outright torture is more problematic:  If a sex offender had my child buried someplace, I would want him tortured in the hopes that I could find her before she died.  But, that would be wrong.  Better that my daughter die than to compromise our judicial system.  What about finding a nuclear weapon in New York?  Would it be better in the long run to absorb a nuclear detonation in New York rather than compromise our standards by torturing a prisoner?  I think one could get a debate on that question.

"So if sacrificing our standards cannot protect us from terrorism, surely there is no excuse at all for sacrificing them?"

I am sure many civil libertarians will make this "slippery slope" argument: If we sacrifice our standards and it happens to save a million lives in New York, there will be a clamor to use torture for lesser threats until torture becomes a routine part of our judicial system which, I think most people agree, will not make us more safe.

It would be nearly as painful for the U.S. to watch a million people die in New York while the terrorist was protected by our judicial system as it would be for me to wait for my daughter to die because the sex offender was protected by the same system, but a good case can be made that our judicial system would be better in the long run.

God (sorry) help the president who has to make that decision when the Bluest of the Blue in New York are clamoring for torture to save their lives.

And just between the two of us, I rather imagine that potential terrorists are actually discouraged by torture, even by the thought of it. Bin Laden recruited quite of few angry young boys by telling them the US was a paper tiger that would cut and run at the first sign of trouble. Most people admire strength a loathe weakness.

Hmmm, let me think about this one.  They'll strap explosives to themselves and blow themselves to kingdom come, but the thought of getting tortured will discourage them.  OK.    

Well, first, you're awfully ready to accept partial evidence as the whole story.  Yeah, some journalists, lawyers, Red Cross workers have been to Gitmo.  It's not really true, as you'd like to think, that they've reported nothing that indicates torture has taken place (see - and this is going to raise your blood pressure WBC - the FBI agent's report that Dick Durbin discussed, before being shouted down).  But suppose it were true that all these visits uncovered nothing - what would that mean?  They'd need to have seen every room at every time to conclude as decisively as you want to that nothing untoward has happened.  Presumably, if one ran a camp where torture was occurring (again, I'm saying this hypothetically), it is pretty much certain that you'd steer the ICRC away from those rooms when you have them over for tea.