Back to Main
October 6, 2005
WB: The Nazi Nine
Comments
Well, this unofficial policy would seem to employ an understanding of how “respect” is created – through threats, intimidation, beatings, shows of force, and retaliatory strikes – that is rooted in a Mafia awareness where the rule of law is assumed to be undesirable, irrelevant, or non-existent.
The Mafia model works fairly well ( leaving ethics out of the discussion ) when employed by agents within their native cultures.
But, the model doesn’t export well when practiced by foreign occupying forces against a cultural dissimilar population.
I’ve long thought that while drawing parallels between Vietnam and Iraq are interesting, another illustrative comparison to make is Napoleon’s occupation – and the ensuing guerrilla war, with extravagent brutality practiced by both sides of the conflict – of Spain.
See: Goya’s “The Horrors of War”
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 6 2005 15:59 utc | 2
forgot the link:
“Mom, you’re not going to like this.” A mother of a U.S. soldier tells her son about the latest Iraq torture admissions A mother of a U.S. soldier tells her son about the latest Iraq torture admissions, only to be told that his unit routinely beat and abused Iraqis. “…suppose you visit an Imam and you want him to call off IED attacks in his neighborhood. If you just go in and ask him politely, he’ll tell you he’ll try to help; but, he won’t . . . But, if you go to that same guy and beat him up thoroughly, then ask him to knock off the attacks, he’ll respect you and he’ll try to help. . . .” The mother reports that her son was “under the impression that the conduct was in line with military policy.”
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 6 2005 16:04 utc | 3
Bush administration threatens veto against Geneva Convention.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 6 2005 16:09 utc | 4
Somebody around here needs to actually read what was passed. A commenter on americablog read it & said that it’s circumventable. Something about only applies if held by Americans. W/all the aliens being incorporated into xUS military, would it apply? Supposing it is sub-contracted…Is it cover – a distinction w/out a difference?
Posted by: jj | Oct 6 2005 17:22 utc | 6
“a distinction w/out a difference?”
Probably not — except that nine Senators were willing to stand up and publicly affirm that they support torture.
Should we give them medals for being honest?
Posted by: Billmon | Oct 6 2005 17:33 utc | 7
Hold off on those medals, Billmon.
As a resident of the only state both of whose Senators favor torture, I just called Tom Coburn’s OKC office to complain about the vote. I was given what was obviously a prepared talking point that the Senator “of course” doesn’t favor torture, but that he voted against the amendment because it puts our foreign intelligence officers at risk.
I replied that she hadn’t told me that he didn’t favor torture, merely _why_ he was in favor of torture. She disagreed with my characterization. So I asked: _how_ would the McCain amendment put our intelligence officers at risk? She drew a total blank, said she only knew what she was told, and transfered me to Cole’s policy person in DC.
The DC office gave me the exact same canned line about torture and putting intelligence officers at risk. But they were able to get just a little more specific. How would they be put at risk? Well they’d be subject to two laws, and could be tried in foreign courts (presumably for torture). I tried to point out that any international treaty obligation we had were part of US law, thanks to our Constitution, so that there was no separate law that this would put our officers under. But I had reached the end of the talking points.
So, no, Billmon. We can’t even give them credit for honesty.
Posted by: BenA | Oct 6 2005 21:08 utc | 8
Inhofe never met a Kristal Night he didn’t like:
The man a bully and loves pounce on people and threaten them with empty promises and “blood on their hands” and other such nonsense.
Beating up brown people if A-OK by him.
Posted by: Rafael | Oct 6 2005 21:49 utc | 9
Just to hop through the looking glass… this one has long been creating cognitive dissonance with me:
Maher Arar, a Canadian resident and citizen, was “disappeared” passing through New York airport.
“Two and a half years ago, American officials, suspecting Arar of being a terrorist, apprehended him in New York and sent him back to Syria, where he endured months of brutal interrogation, including torture.”
Luis Posada Carriles, a convicted terrorist, has been given refuge in the USA.
“Immigration Judge William Abbott found that Posada, a former CIA operative wanted by Venezuela for trial in a 1976 Cuban airliner bombing that killed 73 people, faced the threat of torture in those countries and therefore could not be returned under the United Nations Convention Against Torture.”
Posted by: PeeDee | Oct 6 2005 22:02 utc | 10
@BenA
I just called Tom Coburn’s OKC office to complain about the vote. I was given what was obviously a prepared talking point…
That’s why I quit calling or writing years ago.
Are around jj? did you get that?
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 6 2005 22:23 utc | 11
Ah yes, John Cornyn…another reason to be ashamed to live in Texas (like we don’t have enough already!). You know, our motto here is “thank god for Mississippi.”
Posted by: Stfish7 | Oct 6 2005 22:30 utc | 12
The truly interesting part of McCain’s amendment is the way it goes straight to the source of the issue. That is by attaching it to a military appropriation bill BushCo is between a rock and that other place.
If they veto it the next quota of taxpayers money doesn’t get out to Halliburtons et al.
You would have to think that although there might be more opposition in the house that it won’t be easy to get the numbers to stop the amendment.
This is one of those issues that will cut across party boundaries. Any congressperson up for re election in the mid terms will have to think long and hard on this because while it’s likely that blocking the amendment won’t get you any votes, being seen to support torture and even worse “leaving the troops without a clear mission” is likely to cost votes.
Heheh funny to see the repugs hoist on their own petard of jingoism.
I doubt whether it will make much difference on the ground unfortunately. Those who have established a culture of sadism and inhumanity will not be stopping now because if they did they would have to acknowledge what they probably knew all along. That is that they have been doing wrong.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Oct 6 2005 22:39 utc | 13
“God told me to strike at al-Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did.”
“The White House has dismissed as “absurd” allegations made in a BBC TV series that President Bush claimed God told him to invade Iraq.”
There is that “absurd” word again… The Haiti kidnapping and coup was “absurd”. Allegations of torture at Abu Ghraib and Quantanamo were “absurd”. Falsifying WMD intelligence was “absurd”. Rove outing Plame was “absurd”. Calling something absurd seems to be a useful way of implying that something is false without actually lying in a way that might be legally actionable.
Posted by: PeeDee | Oct 6 2005 22:59 utc | 14
Yeah, PeeDee. They’re “absurd” all right. Just like the whole bloody administration. Totally absurd. Absurd and horrible.
Uncle $cam, it depends on what you’re calling about. If it runs counter to their ideology – sadistic fascists being informed that torture is immoral is like telling a dog to walk on 2 legs – or against something they’re paid to do, rotsa ruck.
When someone is undecided, or the powers that be are trying to slip an amendment into a bill they think no one will notice, it’s a different story. I weighed in w/Feinstein against johnny rotten roberts. Maybe enough of us did & she voted against. Also, 10,000 calls were made opposing the amendment to gut organic foods that I asked people to weight in on. They pulled the amendment…
I very very rarely call, and choose very carefully. I assure you that I agree that it’s very over-rated in general. I’m under no illusions that simply calling ‘n’ voting will restrain the power of the Pirates, restore the Constitution… And pls. don’t get me started on this blame the victim horseshit of if everyone voted…
Surely you can’t believe that if calling x over y did nothing, that it follows that it’s never effective?
Posted by: jj | Oct 7 2005 4:15 utc | 16
Debs’ take:
I doubt whether it will make much difference on the ground unfortunately.
Right, I wonder. I’m waiting for those w/more background on how one would draft an airtight amendment to weigh in on this one. In the interim, I’m reluctant to praise those who supported it. Is it drafted just to preserve the illusions of earnest young West Point graduates? I remember somebody noting back when that Brass didn’t want troops engaging in such practices ‘cuz it was bad for troop morale, so will a new firm of mercenaries from South Africa, Latin America & perhaps even the ME now be formed, soliciting the business of doing the dirty work in The Empire’s growing gulag? Hell, darling Alan Dershowitz might even be an investor!! (Recall the black psyops firm that just formed.) It also protects the ego of the elite from being dragged through this on the floor of Congress, whenever they open the New Yorker…
Posted by: jj | Oct 7 2005 4:27 utc | 17