Michael J. Tottem writes that things are not looking good for the US in Iraq, at least as far as the CPA and Abu Ghraib are concerned.
If what’s being whispered about is true, he may be right.
The CPA is a lame duck. It was never particularly effective, and I’m not surprised that as the approach of sovereignty dawns the Iraqi people are anxious to see it go. Given that the CPA will for all intents and purposes no longer exist in 13 days, there’s little point in worrying about its popularity. The Iraqi people want self-determination, and they will have it soon.
On the other hand, while the abuses we know about at Abu Ghraib are horrible, if what Christopher Hitchens rights about is true, heads damn well better roll. If these kinds of abuses are going on, it shouldn’t be the brig for those directly responsible, it should be the firing squad. That includes Gen. Karpinski, who is directly responsible for the conduct at Abu Ghraib.
I have few qualms about using physical and psychological duress to retrieve information from terrorists like Khalid Sheik Mohammad or others. That information can and likely has saved countless lives. The rights of a terrorist do not trump the rights of thousands of innocent civilians, nor should terrorists who do not uphold their end of the Geneva Convention be treated under the Geneva Convention. The only incentive for holding to the Geneva Convention is reciprocal treatment by others. Terrorists do not follow the Geneva Conventions, and therefore have abrogated any right to be treated under it.
However, the actions at Abu Ghraib were acts of brutality and thuggery. They were inexcusable and entirely un-American. We have to hold our soldiers to the highest standards of ethics and conduct when dealing with protected combatants. Such actions as the ones that have already been revealed should result in permanent incarceration for those responsible after a military court martial. The actions that Hitchens describes are manifestly worse.
If Hitchens is correct, then these abuses do deserve the highest level of condemnation, including the resignation of Secretary Rumsfeld and the highest possible sentences for all those involved in the abuses at Abu Ghraib.
“The rights of a terrorist do not trump the rights of thousands of innocent civilians, nor should terrorists who do not uphold their end of the Geneva Convention be treated under the Geneva Convention. The only incentive for holding to the Geneva Convention is reciprocal treatment by others.”
This is one of the most stupid, inaccurate, dangerous, anti-democratic and anti-human rights sentence I have ever read. Jay, you ARE a terrorist. Maybe some day you’ll understand what J.Christ meant when he said “give the other cheek”. Your arguments sounds like the “Talion rule”= an eye for an eye. What are the values you are putting so high that actually allows the use of torture? Torture never brought anything good: heavier resistance; wrong informations; lowering of soldiers values and believes, etc. For your information, USSR was hated for that. Democracies have won against totalitarism because we never surrendered to our values against fascist views.
We apply the Geneva Convention because we believe that humans should not be tortured, and because our democratic background made us understand that even during war events, ennemy individuals have the right to live. Accepting torture is shameful. No reason can justify this.
It is a hard thing to be in a democracy because it forces you to accept high standards of humanity at high price. But this is also the reason why we hold it so high in our values. Acting like terrorists will not help. If the democratic world start acting like the Bush administration is, then we’re no better than terrorists are. (=> rape the rapists is not an option for the judge, is it?)