James Lileks takes apart the big Time story about “torture” at Gitmo. (With added permalinks to his Screedblog articles, with much appreciation from his fellow bloggers.) A preview of Time‘s story can be found here.
I’m with him. We’re talking about someone who was suspected of involvement in the biggest atrocity of the 21st Century. If putting him in a room with G.I. Jane is the sort of thing that would cause him to crack, so be it. Calling such techniques “torture” is a stretch. We’re in a war. We’re fighting an enemy that has absolutely no compunction about beheading female aid workers, attacking innocent civilians, and would love nothing more than to nuke an American city into the ground. Either we’re serious about dealing with this threat, or we’re not. Trying to play by the Marquis of Queensbury rules against an enemy of head-lopping fanatics is a sure-fire way to ensure that that al-Qaeda’s wet dream of millions of dead Americans comes true.
Nor do I buy the argument that all of this is “the right question” for America. It’s like arguing that we should spend all our time enforcing traffic rules while there’s a gang war on. It’s all about priorities. Either we want to deal with the fanatics who threaten our lives or we want to strut around and trumpet our moral purity while Los Angeles or New York burns to the ground or the first cases of smallpox come in. If using psychological coercision works, then the first priority of our government should always be the protection of the American people, not the approval of this nation’s chattering classes.
There are lines that should not be crossed. Those responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib should be punished to the full extent of the law and end up breaking rocks at Leavenworth for the rest of their lives. The use of direct physical torture is and should be outlawed by the military. There should be checks and balances within the military structure to ensure that the rules are followed. The use of such techniques should be strictly limited only to such cases where there is a demonstrable need for them.
The torrents of moral outrage over this issue are understandable, but misplaced. Wars are dirty, unpleasant, and ugly affairs. Moral purity is impossible under the fog of war, especially so when faced with such a ruthless and evil enemy. Is being able to trumpet our moral superiority worth the lives of another 3,000 people? 30,000? 3,000,000? Is the approval of The Washington Post or The New York Time‘s editorial boards and the international chattering classes worth tying our hands in this war?
The terrible irony of all this is that if Camp X-Ray were shut down, those prisoners would be extradited to places like Saudi Arabia or Yemen where the local governments have no compunction against using real torture against terrorists and criminals.
Our government has an obligation to protect its citizens. The principle of salus populi suprema lex is the first and foremost principle of government. If we’re more concerned about looking good than protecting this nation, then we are in a war that we will inevitably lose.
So you’ve enlisted, right? Oh.
I’m confused jen. How is that a valid arguement? Why should jay not be allowed to support a method of interegration, simply becuase he is not in the military? Does he not benefit and suffer from the same amount of infromation attained in this manner? Is he not better protected when we know of terrorist threats? Is not the risk of terrorist attacks increased when the arab world frowns on this behavior (Which by the way would be even more incensed if we actually shipped the prisoners to yemen and other places to be beaten to a bloody pulp)?
We’re fighting an enemy that has absolutely no compunction about beheading female aid workers, attacking innocent civilians, and would love nothing more than to nuke an American city into the ground. Either we’re serious about dealing with this threat, or we’re not.
So enlist! Be serious about dealing with this threat! Seriously, if everything going on over there is so great, why don’t you all go fight the war, instead of a bunch of poor people and people of color who joined up to get money for college? You know any Iraq war vets? I do. They hate this war, and they don’t understand what we’re doing over there.
Why not you then? Why not just have a military dictatorship where no one can say anything about war without joining the military?
The old “chickenhawk” argument is a dumb one, and it doesn’t get any better with age.
While none of this should be reasonably classified as torture, the army at Gitmo is violating the constituion. Giving the terrorists a Koran is clearly a violation of the seperation of church and state. We should immediately confiscate all copies of the Koran and put them in the same place liberals put Bibles they have confiscated from our government schools.
So the war is great, as long as your ass isn’t on the line fighting it. I see.
In a democracy, everyone regardless of military experience has a right to speak their mind on whatever subject they chose. If you have issues with that arrangement, there are plenty of military dictatorships around where only the military has free speech.
I hear Rangoon is nice this time of year.
Does he not benefit and suffer from the same amount of infromation attained in this manner?
In this case, I think the end does not justify the means. Would not torturing a person to obtain information, even if that information was then used to protect yourself, violate Christian faith and morality? If there is a line that should not be crossed, where does it lie and who gets to decide?