The enemy is us

You should check out this story if you haven't already:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808

Believe Me, It’s Torture
What more can be added to the debate over U.S. interrogation methods, and whether waterboarding is torture? Try firsthand experience. The author undergoes the controversial drowning technique, at the hands of men who once trained American soldiers to resist—not inflict—it.

by Christopher Hitchens August 2008

WOW! The Bush Administration advocates Chinese Torture! I've know that from the first time they described water boarding.

Are we now ready to admit that we have been using criminal and inhuman treatment of prisoners of war, oh I'm sorry, enemy combatants? We have become the very thing we have fought against. We are using the Devil to fight the demons. John McCain who suffered at the hands of Chinese trained torturers now endorses the use of same?

We should be brought up before the world court. Rumsfeld Bush and Chaney should be tried as war criminals and we better close down Getmo.

The Supreme Court should have put a stop to the madness at the start. God forgive us of our sins. We are no longer the Home of the Brave and the Free, but the refuse of despots and villains.

Evidence is pouring out of our national disgrace.

Truly, we must weep for the Republic.

Am I reading this right. You all appear shocked...shocked to discover torture is being used by the US? Or is it just where some of the techniques orginated? If you have ever read any books on torture or interrogation techniques, it really does not matter from one country to another where the techniques come from it is what works. Heck, the US have also used some thechniques that the Germans used in WW II, does that make us all Nazi's?

I believe in war, sometimes there have to be things that are done in order to save lives. Some of those things may appear to be inhuman or cruel. I hate to contemplate those and wonder what I'd do in those situations, but lets not just criticise ourselves here. If I'm not mistaken, our enemies in this war are/were BEHEADING people at one point or another. Not prisoners of war, just people-journalists, contractors, etc. Let's not forget the images of our soldiers being dragged throught the streets. Don't see our side doing that sort of thing. Why is it the media always wants to focus on our abuses, and not those of our savage enemies? Is it because we're supposedly a Christian nation, or should know better, or because we're supposed to be better than that? We are in a WAR people! Guess what, Interrogation gets results and has gotten results. Torture, as ugly as it sounds, gets results. You can't say the information we have received from interrogations at Guantanamo has been bad info if its yielding real results.

We have to get over this notion that war has to be fought with rules like a football game, or that we fight war like a police investigation. War is ugly. I realize the Genevea convention has set some barriers for inhumane treatment, but for the most part war is about killing your enemy and breaking their military and societal will. I'm thankful there are people in this country who can and are willing to do this hard work in order to help make us more secure-secure enought to sit here and blog and ruminate about our organic gardens, ponder gourmet foods, and foment the end-of-the-world/peak oil/monk wanna-be discussions. I'm not in the military, but lets not forget who provides us the security to do pretty much anything we wish-not the ACLU, not the UN or SCOTUS, but our military.

Rod: Challenge for you: blog a whole week without mentioning Spengler, Sullivan, Caleb Stegall, Larison, or any of the other usual suspects you seem to poach discussion ideas off of. And enough of the peak oil/societal disaster discussions. How about features of positive things real people are DOING in the world (and no, organic gardening, hipster co-housing, benedict option stufff doesn't count) instead of talking about them?

"You have a right to kill me. You have a right to do that... but you have no right to judge me. It's impossible for words to describe what is necessary to those who do not know what horror means. Horror. Horror has a face... and you must make a friend of horror. Horror and moral terror are your friends. If they are not then they are enemies to be feared. They are truly enemies. I remember when I was with Special Forces. Seems a thousand centuries ago. We went into a camp to inoculate the children. We left the camp after we had inoculated the children for Polio, and this old man came running after us and he was crying. He couldn't see. We went back there and they had come and hacked off every inoculated arm. There they were in a pile. A pile of little arms. And I remember... I... I... I cried. I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out. I didn't know what I wanted to do. And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it. I never want to forget. And then I realized... like I was shot... like I was shot with a diamond... a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought: My God... the genius of that. The genius. The will to do that. Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. And then I realized they were stronger than we. Because they could stand that these were not monsters. These were men... trained cadres. These men who fought with their hearts, who had families, who had children, who were filled with love... but they had the strength... the strength... to do that. If I had ten divisions of those men our troubles here would be over very quickly. You have to have men who are moral... and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling... without passion... without judgment... without judgment. Because it's judgment that defeats us."

Imagine what a joyful hopeful exceptional country you'll have then. A Shinning City on the Hill blessed by God - a beacon to all.

I am deeply troubled by the following reflections:

1. Jesus said, "Where I am there will my follower also be."

2. Anyone here is welcome to image Jesus in the place of any of the torturers described in any of these documents.

The reader is left to his/her own conclusions.

I believe in war, sometimes there have to be things that are done in order to save lives. Some of those things may appear to be inhuman or cruel. I hate to contemplate those and wonder what I'd do in those situations, but lets not just criticise ourselves here.

The fact of making bad things illegal doesn't prevent them from happening. But it means there is accountability after the fact. The defendant can always argue his case of serving some compelling necessity or higher good.

What the legalization of e.g. torture and war crimes means is that there is no accountability. There is zero evidence of torture having achieved anything significant to compromise Al Qaeda. Without actual accountability the torturers and war crime perpetrators will always assert their deeds to have been meritorious and efficacious.

This much, however, IS certain: for nearly 7 years our homeland (including NYC) has not been attacked.

And not one monkey has flown out of my butt! That proves it - torture is good!

That's exactly what I thought about your post!

Bob: "That's exactly what I thought about your post!"

You said "thought." Was there any "thought" on your part?

Was there any "thought" on your part?

Let's see. You imply that because there have been no terrorist attacks on our "homeland" - wie shoen! - that torture must be working, or at least not as odious and reprehensible as the godless liberal media would have us believe.

I cannot fathom how a Christian can harbor such a thought.

Reaganite/K: Thanks for the maturity of your exchange. That's all.

Bless,
Doug

"k"

Good response (at 10:26 PM). I understand better your position, which I respect as a morally consistent position.

Folks, I'm not apologizing for or defending torture. There are the moral objections: harm is done to the soul of the torturers as grave as the harm done to the bodies of the tortured. There are also objections on utilitarian grounds (i.e., doubts about beneficial results). I understand that.

I would just ask consideration, however, for the following:

(1) A completely transparent process (full divulgence of all operations and details involving the holding of these detainees) would involve divulging the morally acceptable practices along with the morally reprehensible practices. Divulging information about the former is stupid and harmful to our interests as Al Qaeda and others would incorporate this information when training their operatives what to do when captured. There is a whole spectrum of interrogation techniques that do not cross the line morally. Divulgence of this information would hurt our interests in what is still, whether we welcome it or not, a "long twilight struggle" against those who fully intend to do us harm.

(2) With the exception of those that were in the wrong place at the wrong time, these detainers do not merit excessive sympathy. To respond to "k"'s point, they are NOT an unborn, defenseless child in the womb. They are NOT some elderly woman suffering unjustly from Parkinson's disease (and clinging to the belief that embryonic stem cell research might relieve her from misery). They chose to support and participate in terrorist groups that give no quarter in attempting to slaughter defenseless civilians without provocation. Of course, they are human -- children of God, no less -- but we should be prudential and not naive in considering how to treat them.

Yes, these detainees have rights as human beings. But we are balancing the rights of terrorists against the rights of civilian populations to protect themselves from thugs they don't know and have never harmed.

"anonymous" poster at 12:33 AM

You make a lot of claims. Please provide links and references. Nothing personal, mind you.

By the way, what does the TV show "24" have to do with this -- or any TV show for that matter? Real people die from terrorists, my friend. What happened here in NYC nearly seven years ago in early September was not some Hollywood production, OK?

Yes, these detainees have rights as human beings. But we are balancing the rights of terrorists against the rights of civilian populations to protect themselves from thugs they don't know and have never harmed.
Posted by: Reaganite in NYC | July 2, 2008 10:59 PM

A nation state will do what it will do, and it's never a surprise (to me) when its government/military actions miss the mark to which Christians are called.

When we begin to feel that we play any balance game of whose soul or life is more worthy than whose, concerning the commission of cruel or violent acts, this becomes a compromise with evil which falls far short of Jesus' words and example. Treating fellow humans with decency and honor is not an issue dependent on what party should merit the most sympathy, it should simply be a standard of our conduct.

Why are so many who claim Jesus seemingly more willing to approve the harm of human torture more than they are to entrust themselves life and soul into God's care? If we think ANY evil must be committed or permitted in doing what God requires and expects us to do in caring for ourselves in this life, that is a deception from hell.

"Defended by academics and intellectuals everywhere"? BS, tehag. Find me a couple of dozen citations to that effect. No, not one or two nutcases, but, as you claim, lots of examples from EVERYWHERE. Sadly, you'd have no problem finding at least a dozen conservative pundits who support torture by the U.S. It's to Rod's credit that he's not one of them.

Thank you for the information, Karen Brown. Not that it will help. Reaganite, for example, will brook no consideration of innocence for anyone who is not "an unborn, defenseless child in the womb." That's the new evidentiary standard: if you're not a fetus, we can torture you at will. These are the people who think the Inquisition wasn't so bad. I can see them complacently watching the flames rise around witches, too. "After all, if she wasn't a witch, she wouldn't have confessed! And if she hadn't been guilty, they wouldn't have had to torture her in the first place!"

I'm not sure the Chinese should get the credit for this, though. I was just reading Howard Zinn's "A People's History of American Empire," a graphic adaptation of material from his "A People's History of the United States." There's a photo of U.S. forces waterboarding a Filipino prisoner, in 1902. Mark Twain spoke out vehemently against the torture and slaughter we wreaked there. But Elihu Root assured us that everything was fine: "The war in the Philippines has been conducted by the American Army with scrupulous regard for the rules of civilized warfare, with self-restraint, and with humanity never surpassed." The Big Lie never dies. Perhaps George W. does learn from history, after all.

Oh my country, my country. I weep for what you could have been. Someday those of you who are standing up for torture are going to eat your words, and they will be bitter and salted with tears.

"k": "When we begin to feel that we play any balance game of whose soul or life is more worthy than whose, concerning the commission of cruel or violent acts, this becomes a compromise with evil which falls far short of Jesus' words and example."

K,

First, this is not a "game" that we "play."

Second, balancing the needs and rights of human beings in society is part of life and it is not easy. While everyone deserves -- as children of God -- basic rights, not everyone deserves to be treated the same way by society. A serial axe murderer and an innocent elementary school student, for example, merit different treatments by society.

Third, is it not supremely Christian to keep in mind the rights of innocent civilians who are the targets of these terrorists? It is, as you suggest, a compromise with evil to consider some lives as more valuable than others. But it is also a compromise with evil to ignore valid security concerns (that affect the lives of tens of millions of Americans) because recognizing those concerns doesn't fit a current political agenda or set of talking points. Perhaps THAT is the real "game" that is being "played" in this matter by the left with their tiresome "AmeriKa Sucks" narrative.

Reaganite, imprisoning and torturing people who were incorrectly identified as terrorists and then refusing to admit the mistake does nothing to help innocent civilians and in the long run, puts them in more danger because it radicalizes people who would otherwise be well-disposed to the US.

sig: "And beneath the starry flag/ Civilize 'em with a Krag,"

John E.: "Reaganite, imprisoning and torturing people who were incorrectly identified as terrorists and then refusing to admit the mistake does nothing to help innocent civilians and in the long run, puts them in more danger because it radicalizes people who would otherwise be well-disposed to the US."

We all know that. No one wants to imprison and torture the incorrectly identified. And throwing them in with the al qaeda thugs at Gitmo will radicalize them. We know that.

But what do you propose to do? Let them ALL out? Some people have been released from Gitmo. Others will be (with or without the SCOTUS ruling). But treat them ALL like ordinary defendants with the same rights as American citizens -- THAT is dangerous if not insane.

I don't doubt that mistakes have been made. But I also doubt that ANY of us armchair observers who blog from the comfort of our homes (and, for some, sitting in their pajamas) could have done any better in the face of these circumstances.

We did not ask to be attacked on 9/11. We all should feel remorse for any innocent bystanders who got sucked into this and have been unneccesarily imprisoned. But who are you going to blame for this? Don't the people who made these attacks on 9/11 -- and who supported and aided and abetted them -- deserve some of the blame for all of this?

Reaganite, the following has behind it a conscious setting aside of the compassion I feel for you, Rod, my EMT friend who spent two weeks living in tents and breathing toxins, and my cousin who still has nightmares. Please bear with me...

The starting premise in the logic chain is the simple reality that the US is a free and open society (such as it is, I know). We don't have a cop on every corner, we don't put surveillance cameras in every home, we can't even muster the mildest intervention with people who wilfully threaten the lives of others on our highways. So, what is the moral difference between the thousands of dead we "allow" every year in our open society, and the thousands who died on 9/11?

The simple reality is that there cannot be safety from that starting premise. It is simply impossible unless we convert ourselves to a police state to an ever-increasing extent... and even then, we cannot guarantee that a 9/11 won't happen again. Just look at Israel. I was there for 9 days in the late 70s, during a period of relative quiet. There was an armed soldier on every corner in Jerusalem. Don't even suggest that Gitmo torture has had anything to do with the lack of subsequent attacks here or elsewhere until you examine the last 35 years of the Israeli experience, because I'm betting you're going to see how ridiculous such a claim is.

The price of liberty is blood. It must be paid by every generation. No sane person likes it, wants it, or thinks it is a good thing. No sane person, in my opinion, should fail to see the truth of it.

I'm deeply sorry of this post causes you pain. I'm not feeling very good about myself for writing it. My parents knew that pain.

Franklin Evans,

Thanks for your post (9:23 AM). I'll think about it. The example of Israel is particularly instructive. We want to avoid that fate ... although in fairness to the Israelis it's hard to see how they could have avoided their situation and still remain a viable society.

Bear in mind that I am not condoning torture at Gitmo. And I'll concede that mistakes were made (involving the detention of the innocent) not because of any biased reporting on this case but because the odds (based on our long human history) favor it. However, for those real bad apples that ARE spending their days in Gitmo, I don't hesitate to say that I'm glad they're in Gitmo and not free to roam the streets of America and planning their next strike.

As for your statement about the price of liberty being blood, perhaps your should clarify that a bit. For me, the question is whose blood? I am reminded of the famous line attributed to George Patton, "The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other guy [the enemy combatant] die for his."

"First, this is not a "game" that we "play."

Some things really are black and white. Some behaviours Christians will simply have no part of. When it's even a debate whether captives should be tortured or what are the ways we may harm them in attempting to extract from their broken minds any possible information which might possibly maybe keep someone safe, that has become a very sick game.

"Third, is it not supremely Christian to keep in mind the rights of innocent civilians who are the targets of these terrorists?"

We "keep that in mind" through imprisoning them where they can commit no more crimes. We go someplace else entirely when we devise and commit systematic trauma and abuse against those held imprisoned and dependent in our care.

For me, the most instructive aspect of the Israeli experience is that they have avoided a complete abandonment of moral choices for the sake of protecting themselves from a real and constant danger. Many dead Israelis might have been saved and alive right now if their government had ignored morality and wiped the Palestinians out.

For me, the question is whose blood?

I don't want to belabor Israel as an example, though I imagine the average Israeli would answer that with "Mine, my children's and my friends' blood" with a look of incredulity or scorn. Of course, that's a completely personal and subjective view on my part.

We have a cognitive dilemma, you and I and our fellow citizens. We are not at war, we have not had even the threat of warfare on our soil for 60 years and more, a very long time in generational memory. I contrast that with the statistics* I alluded to earlier, the thousands of individual acts of "terror" that result in the death of a US citizen every day. In both cases, you and I (excepting our connections with 9/11) have never had and likely never will have a personal confrontation with murder whether under a condition of war or between our doorsteps and some destination.

I'm going to close this with a personal statement, because I feel a long rant/lecture coming on and that is not what you asked for. We, as a society and a culture, never assimilated the lesson of our founding revolution. We have become spoiled, complacent, and convinced of rights and privileges we've neither earned nor can sanely expect.

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

If you understand that in your heart, you already know the answer to your question; you just might not know how to verbalize it. That describes rather precisely how I feel.

Sigaliris,

I'm sure you love your country. But I'm not sure I love your condescension towards "well-meaning earnest souls ... apparently unable to understand ..." If you wish to advance an argument, fine, but no need to pour out tears of sympathy for "us dolts" who disagree with you.

If Israel had 'ignored morality and wiped the Palestinians out' then they would no longer have the financial and military support of the United States. They would have lost all of their trading partners, because everywhere, across the world, they would be condemned for genocide. Their economy would tank. They would be without allies. They would be surrounded by enemies, without the financial means or the trading partners to even purchase bombs and bullets. That would be the stupidest thing Israel could possibly do.

No argument here, Z. I had those very thoughts in mind already... and I have no doubt the Israeli leaders did and do also.

Reaganite, the wire services carried the FBI story. The policy change was (is being, I assume) debated in Congress.

R. in NYC:

If you had clicked through, you would have seen that it was a reprint of an AP story.

Here is a link to the same AP story as printed in the LA Times. What say you now?:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-profiling3-2008jul03,0,3279326.story?track=rss

Proposed FBI plan would authorize racial profiling
The policy would allow the agency to open terrorism investigations even if evidence of wrongdoing is lacking.
From the Associated Press
July 3, 2008

WASHINGTON -- The Justice Department is considering allowing the FBI to investigate Americans without any evidence of wrongdoing, relying instead on a terrorist profile that could single out Muslims, Arabs or other racial and ethnic groups.

Z: "If Israel had 'ignored morality and wiped the Palestinians out' then they would no longer have the financial and military support of the United States. They would have lost all of their trading partners ... That would be the stupidest thing Israel could possibly do."

Folks, is there any evidence that this option (ignoring morality and "wiping out" the Palestinians) has been seriously considered by any Israeli government since 1948? The suggestion I'm hearing from all this talk is that genocide was seriously considered.

Please clarify. Is it fair to impugn the motives of Israel without credible evidence? If there is such evidence, please educate me.

"We all know that. No one wants to imprison and torture the incorrectly identified. And throwing them in with the al qaeda thugs at Gitmo will radicalize them. We know that.

But what do you propose to do? Let them ALL out? Some people have been released from Gitmo. Others will be (with or without the SCOTUS ruling). But treat them ALL like ordinary defendants with the same rights as American citizens -- THAT is dangerous if not insane."

Why is it all or nothing? Why is it 'keep them in Gitmo or let them out'? Why are the options only extremes? Why isn't it 'let out those who, after 5 YEARS, we haven't found anything on.. and keep the ones, those 8 percent, who have been proven to do something..?

And why is it so dangerous and insane to treat them like American defendants? Was it so dangerous and insane when it was Timothy McVeigh? He blew up a major building, killing hundreds with only a couple of people helping. We somehow managed to imprison, prosecute, and execute the man using the good old fashioned US justice system and, somehow, we survived that dangerous and insane notion.

Or is it assume that native born terrorists who blow up buildings are safer to prosecute than.. naw, that can't be it. Until SCOTUS ruled a year or so back, we HAD a few US born people in Gitmo.

So, what makes it so dangerous and insane to imprison, investigate, prosecute, convict, and sentence this crew than any other group of dangerous criminals we have ever done that to?

"I don't doubt that mistakes have been made. But I also doubt that ANY of us armchair observers who blog from the comfort of our homes (and, for some, sitting in their pajamas) could have done any better in the face of these circumstances."

Some feel mighty frightened, apparently, in that supposed comfort of our home. A 92 percent error rate is acceptable? They couldn't forsee that offering the equivalent of 5 years income in an impoverished region for bounties might net a few who weren't guilty?

I'm sorry, you don't have to be a professional in law enforcement to figure that one out. Of course, that's part of the problem. We weren't using law enforcement for this. We were using the military. And as a former member of the military, as a daughter of career military who grew up her entire life in various military bases and towns, I can tell you..

There's a significant difference between law enforcement and the military. In training, in the usual mission, in expected type and level of success. The closest to a military sort of action is paying for informants. And with informants, you can gauge the validity of their info. In this case, they get their pay, they're gone, its assumed they were being honest, and the people tagged are assumed guilty. And then the goal is to try to get them to admit they are.

If a person WAS innocent, how do you prove you did NOT do something? How do you prove you are NOT a member of an organization? Or.. you know, own a rifle in a warzone, or wear olive drab?

"We did not ask to be attacked on 9/11. We all should feel remorse for any innocent bystanders who got sucked into this and have been unneccesarily imprisoned. But who are you going to blame for this? Don't the people who made these attacks on 9/11 -- and who supported and aided and abetted them -- deserve some of the blame for all of this?"

Then maybe we should try this again.

Not only are most of the people in Gitmo not even believed to be part of 9/11, but not even of the organization that planned it. So what does 'We didn't ask to be attacked on 9/11' have to do with it?

Does the fact we were attacked now justify ANYTHING we may do from then on? Can we just recite '9/11' and anything goes? Even when its about people who had nothing to do with it? Even that 8 percent? Those 10 who are charged, there's only two people in the whole place (and we all know THEIR names) who are even suspected to have one thing to do with 9/11.

So, no. I think the ones who did the attack deserve what we do to THEM. And believe me, that's plenty of blame. However, they aren't Satan. They didn't 'make us do it', and they don't deserve the blame for what we do to anyone else BUT them.

I taught my son that he may not be able to control being afraid, or being angry. But he COULD control what he did in response TO his anger or fear and that, no, the ones who made him that way were not responsible for his actions. HE is responsible for his actions.

That was to a child. I certainly can't lower the standards for adults.

David TC: "But I've had more than enough of conservatives defending torture simply because it's their guy doing it ..."

DavidTC, I've haven't seen anyone here on this thread "defending torture simply because it's their guy doing it ..." If you're bowing out of this conversation, fine, but don't blame on it that strawman.

Enjoy your Fourth of July!

And why is it so dangerous and insane to treat them like American defendants?
Posted by: Karen Brown | July 3, 2008 11:35 AM

I asked that earlier. Still don't have an answer.

Also, R. in NYC, is the AP a good enough source for you?

One wonders if the same phenomenon is not at work here with these sweeping claims about Gitmo abuses or the nature of those detained there.
Posted by: Reaganite in NYC | July 3, 2008 11:53 AM

Good question. Let's put them on public trial and find out.

Jim, thank you very much for your kind words.

Reaganite:

Re impugning Israel -- it was never my intention to assert that Israel had plans to do such a thing. One can reasonably label their invasion of southern Lebanon as a step in that direction, and reasonably speculate that they considered destroying the refugee camps from which rockets were being launched and forcing the refugees to flee out of rocket range. I don't have any "evidence" to support such speculation, nor do I believe it exists. But the ubiquitous practice of Palestinian soldiers using civilian refugees as human shields makes my speculation more than reasonable, in my opinion.

It is valid and proper to question the accuracy of the detainees' lawyers' statements, but there is a reasonable middle ground: being conscientious litigators, they'd be completely justified in raising doubts and questions that would result in an objective review of the actual facts. That they couch their rhetoric in assertions raises a red flag with me, too. It does not, however, prompt me to dismiss the issues.

Speaking of such: I put an asterisk after "statistics" in my 10:19 post, but neglected to include the intended footnote. I hate statistics. They are almost always used to obfuscate, spin or distract. They are almost always stated out of context of the actual data they represent. I'm not just blowing steam with those assertions. I've used statistical analysis in a scientific setting, and I was a pension actuary for 14 years. I believe I know whereof I complain. ;-)

ARgh. Thing won't let me post my reply. Keep getting errors.

I'll condense.

Both the Seton Hall and the separate report by both the defense attorneys (definitely possible to be biased) AND by Stuart Taylor of the National Journal cite the actual DoD site with the case files. Feel free to simply look at them yourself. All of them.

What we do know is that they have been releasing people that, after five years, (last DoD report is a list of 38 released as no longer qualifying as 'enemy combatants'. And that only 10 have been charged. Out of over 500. In five years.

So, I'll keep this question brief, and more related to the subject. You keep citing 9/11, even though most of the people in Gitmo aren't even being accused of being involved with that.

I won't ask what you consider acceptable using 9/11 as justification. Instead, I'll ask, how far IS too far to you? What would you say 'No, even if it does relate to 9/11, we can't DO that?

Robert Kagan...I had never previously heard of Kagan ... and am wondering if anyone is familiar with him or his latest book

I'll take you at your word that you've never heard of Kagan, although I find it hard to believe. Co-founder of the Project for the New American Century, Kagan shares the same basic ideology as the rest of PNAC's neoconservative signatories, including Dick Cheney, William Kristol, Scooter Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, et al - the prevaricating architects of our perpetual war on terror/occupation of the Middle East.

Thank you, Reaganite. The following is intended to every reader, not to you personally. I am going to vent...

To borrow and run with your description, I believe that 9/11 forces us -- all citizens -- to face our contemporary definition of the "all" in putting it all on the line. What is our liberty worth to us? Is there any possibility of consensus on what "sacred Honor" means?

Do we, even now, have enough citizens in this country who understand those concepts to justify the sacrifices of a patriot?

Part of me succumbs to frustration and contempt, and answers in the negative. Part of me is afraid to go out and find the true answer. In the end, I find solace in the patriotism of my parents. They were both intelligent, educated, of strong will and ego. They were both exiled from their homelands to avoid death. They both had great pride in their home cultures along with a both eyes open awareness of their shortcomings. When I asked my mother why we were not a multi-lingual family, she answered simply: she and dad intended to raise Americans, no hyphens.

I have other reasons that rightfully make me a liberal opponent of the war in Iraq, but the apparent answer to that last question cuts me to the bone, and makes me grieve twice over for our wounded and dead children. This question was asked by Lara Logan while a guest on "The Daily Show", and stopped me dead: of the thousands of dead American soldiers over the last six-plus years, how many have you seen in pictures in newspapers and on the TV? Damn few, damn few, and again I say damn few.

They are paying our blood price, and beyond their immediate families and communities they are nearly invisible.

Think about that tomorrow as you hover over your grill, sit on the beach, and watch your local fireworks.

I looked back at my posts in this thread, and lo! I've written a somewhat torturous essay on patriotism. Having some motivation to set my modesty aside in this case, I've combined them, done some cleaning and editing, and posted it to my LiveJournal account.

I allow anonymous posting there. If you don't have an LJ account, please put some identifying words in your post, even if it's just "I saw the link on Rod's blog."

Umm.. Rock?

I don't know who the 'pacifistic Christian handwringers' are.

Myself, I'm a military vet and atheist. And we aren't talking about POW's, or combat missions. Matter of fact, we are SO not talking about POW's and combat missions that the administration had to create a whole new class of human just to cover these detainees to make SURE we knew that.

And I hope we aren't talking about the military 'killing people', since we are dealing with people already captured and being held in a facility. Are you saying that the military is KILLING the people in Gitmo? Geez, and here I was just thinking they were being rather.. strenuously interrogated and being held without charge or recourse to our justice system.

And I only WISH that there was as much oversight as to actually apply for something like a 'warrant'.

So, let me ask. Given that the point of torture (unless you are advocating it for punishment) is to get information, and given that one of the things it seems we often forget is one of the possibilities is that the person being tortured doesn't HAVE that information.. (That's where the '24' comparisons come in. The difference between reality and TV or the movies is that in those media, the audience usually knows whether the person being interrogated actually has that information or not. Of course, the audience also usually knows what the information is, for that matter..)

So, exactly what situations do you think merit that 'torture warrant'? Is it based on how important the information is? Or how likely the tortured party is to have the information?

This has absolutely nothing to do with just about everything you brought up.

It has nothing to do with traditional war. Not only are we not actually AT war, officially, with anyone (and haven't been since WWII), to bring up exactly how different this is from one, let me ask a couple of questions.

1. McCain said something about never surrendering. Even if we wanted to, exactly who would we surrender to? For matter, if we won, whose surrender, precisely, would we be accepting? 'Terror'?

2. How, exactly, will we know we have won? What are the conditions under which we can accurately say we have won this 'war'? Be specific, since, to have an end date, a war has to be said to have been won. We have dates, exact days on which other official wars ended. And reasons we can say they ended. (Usually involved the designated leader of the enemy tendering their surrender.) What would a 'victory in Iraq' day look like, what would happen on that day that would let us know the war was over?

Secondly, we're not talking about anything that's happening on a battlefield. These guys aren't ON battlefields. And are you suggesting, given we aren't at war with the official regime running Iraq, nor its general citizenry or its official military, that we drop a nuke on the country in order to eliminate the factions that are fighting us?

Realism deals with the situation we are in, not scenarios that aren't even comparable even if they weren't over 60 years in the past. Nothing about our current situation has a thing to do with WWII.

Rock, I'm feeling much less polite today. Here's the corrected, logically consistent version of your post above:

"I for one am not in favor of a blanket ban on torture. Instead, I support Alan Dershowitz's idea of having a procedure where torture could be allowed in specific cases, a torture warrant.

"We need to live in the real world. In the real world, the US military tortures people. Sometimes the US military even tortures innocent civilians."

If that's the world you want to live in, you are not a patriot, and I reject any claim you have to US citizenship. I'm quite ready to lump Dershowitz with you.

In the world I live in, our soldiers do what they are ordered to do, their superiors give them those orders, and if the orders turn out to be illegal even if the outcome is what was desired they go to courts martial and if convicted pay the penalties.

Oh, and yes, I'm putting words in your mouth, the words you would have used if you'd actually had the courage of your convictions.

BTW, I don't wring my hands, I'm not a Christian, and I am not a pacifist.

RJohnson: "By that standard anything can be justified...even the killing of innocent children in Baghdad."

RJohnson,

Maybe by your standard ... but not by anyone else's standard. My gosh, what a foul thought you've introduced.

BTW, I don't mean to correct your Latin, but I believe the correct phrase is "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" and NOT "Post hoc ergo proctor hoc"

Maybe by your standard ... but not by anyone else's standard. My gosh, what a foul thought you've introduced.

How incredibly disingenuous. Your logical fallacy blinds you to the fact that tens of thousands of innocent people were killed in George Bush's criminal, preemptive war. Even he admits as much.