Asymmetrical Information

Yes, it definitely is a stupid statement. But I'm sorry to say that the guy's got a legitimate point. Lots of the stuff that those brats pulled was wrong and a violation of established procedure and conduct unbecoming a soldier in the United States armed forces … but calling it torture is an exaggeration.

This does nothing to diminish the fact that those idiots deserve to spend a nice, long time in the disciplinary barracks at Ft. Leavenworth, but it it does something to advance the public debate on just what "torture" means, that's good.

It's consensual behavior, you moron. And if there are frequent pyramids of naked cheerleaders anywhere, my cable access is grossly inadequate.

No what the soldiers did was not torture. Cutting off heads, beating with bats, drugging are all forms of torture. Making men lie in a pile is humiliation which is not torture!

caption from a theoretical Gary Larson cartoon:

Khalid was jealous that Nahmud was always chosen as top man in the american's pyramid. But he would have his revenge, oh yes.

Firstly, there is such a thing as psychological torture. Secondly, the soldier currently on trial has also been accused of physical assault on a prisoner.

Do any of those posting about how inconsequential the actions in Abu Ghraib really are truly understand anything about cultures outside of the U.S. or Western Europe? Do they begin to understand how damaging it is to America's reputation in the world?

Ah Jane, don't you know your new Insta-readers yet? I guess not. Enjoy getting to know them in this thread.

> Do they begin to understand how damaging it is to America's reputation in the world?

And why is this our problem?

If they weren't complaining about Saddam and the beheadings, their complaints about naked puppy piles isn't concern with human rights, respect, or anything noble.

This is all part of their strategy. They're trying to win on appeal.

Andy Freeman, it is our problem because reputation matters, just ask someone with bad credit.

Ah yes...another satified customer from the Lionel Hutz School of Lawyering.

Part of the reason we're the good guys is: the bad guys APPROVE OF torture, web-cam decapitations, and the deliberate murder of innocents. We don't.
Some of our guys crossed the line, blurring it. They'll be sorry.
That said, not all unkind treatment of prisoners sinks to the level of torture.
Some of the 'Abu-Grabu' photos made good propaganda.
I especially liked the photo of the female soldier dragging the naked prisoner by a leash.
It had a "this is what you get" vibe.
Y'know?
Like: "You really don't wanna *$#@! with us, cause this is what our GIRLS will do to you."
The more reactionary, fundamentalist, "macho-man" Arab terrorists who get that image rubbed in their faces, the better.
Knowh'I'msain?

If people don't want to refer to the hijinx at AG as 'torture', then maybe 'abuse' would fit?
I'm sure that even those who have a higher torture threshold could agree that it was 'prisoner abuse'.

Unless, of course the 'it's not torture' line is supposed to mean that what wwent on was a normal way to treat prisoners (the great majority of whom it appears had nothing to do with terrorism or anti-American actions, but were just unlucky enough to be at the wrong place at the wrong time).

Some of the commentators here should pass their suggestions on to Mr Womack. They exceed his for gross indecency. BTW, may I remind these commentators that many of those held in Abu Ghraib were by no means terrorists and in some cases just unluc ky to be grabbed in a sweep.

This may seem like it's not the same subject...but bear with me...

Starting in 1943 we, here in the US, started setting up POW camps for Germans captured in North Africa. Camp Concordia, in Kansas, was home to over 4,000 prisoners. They were the enemy, but they were treated with respect. They were allowed access to books, in German that we banned under Hitler. They were allowed to work on American farms and meet American families. They were allowed access to courses given and accredited by the University of Kansas in as many as 300 subjects. They were allowed to prepare their own meals.

After the war prisoners were released and sent back to Germany. They told their friends and family how well they were treated, they let people know that the United States kept its word and obeyed the Geneva Convention to the letter. Many of these Germans moved back to the United States to live in the 1950s. Many of these men were hard-core Nazis when they were captured.

The United States is the greatest country in the world. I have no doubt about that. Therefore are actions should always be above reproach. We should never have someone come out of our custody who wasn't treated with the highest level of respect and according to the rules and the meaning of the Geneva Convention. Perhaps one of the only ways to ensure that this is possible is to have a zero tolerance policy to those who do not treat prisoners captured during a war with the highest standard of care available to them.

Was it torture? I think so. Would you find it acceptable if you were put on a big naked pyramid? How about made to stand on a box, with things you thought were electrodes on your hands, a bag over your head, dripping wet and told that you would be electrocuted if you did not stand still? Is that torture? Or maybe being dragged around on the floor with a dog collar? Is that acceptable?

I just don't think so. We are the United States. We should be above reproach. We no longer are. This incident means we can not simply say, "We are America, we don't do things like that..." because we do.

And let me say that it is small comfort to anyone that we aren't "as bad" as Saddam. Our government and Saddam's government shouldn't even be able to be spoken about in the same breath.

For this war to work, for Iraq to become a democracy, we need to have the Iraqi's hearts and minds behind us. For the US to be successful in this endeavor, we need to have the Iraqi people agree that the US is doing what is best for them. A.G. was just the proof that the Iraqis needed to show that the U.S. is just as bad as previous régimes. My goodness, given what those soldiers took pictures of, what horrors didn't get photographed?

Everyone involved in the incidents at Abu Ghraib should be severely punished. There is no excuse for the behavior that went on the Abu Ghraib and I believe it severely hurt our chances to do what we need to in Iraq.

I am disgusted by those people on this discussion thead who are making excuses for behavior that is completely unacceptable under any standard. You should all be ashamed of yourself. Those soldiers who abused prisoners in Abu Ghraib hurt America and they deserve to be punished.

Hopefully their jailers will be more humane than they were.

> Andy Freeman, it is our problem because reputation matters, just ask someone with bad credit.

"bad credit" only matters when you're trying to get a loan.

What do these folks have that we want AND we'll get if we don't put them in naked puppy piles? (Note, you have to show that those results were achieved before the piles and are still being achieved by those not associated with said piles.)

We're trying to stop folks from peeing in their neighbors' Mini Wheats. No, we can't succeed if said neighbors don't want us to, but if we fail, they're the ones stuck with the bad breakfast.

As far as "voluntary" goes, incarceration isn't voluntary, so voluntary is useless as a standard.

And, if leashed by a woman is a problem, they can't handle frat initiation or the Folsom Street Fair.

I would rather we keep the word "torture" to describe the more extreme acts of physical injury and infliction of pain that are normally associated with the word. I don't like diluting it so that it can refer to anything from discomfort to vivisection.

Having said that, I don't approve of prisoner abuse in any form and strongly believe that those responsible for the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib should be punished.

On the other hand, I would approve of the same, exact treatment if it were being used specifically to get information from terrorists AND it were shown to be effective at doing so. Fortunately, my understanding is that there are much better ways to get information, so such tactics are generally not necessary.

Bolie IV

Kate, well said. Some of these comments are horrifying- I thought KKK membership was going down?

What those creeps did was abuse. I don't want to be part of a country that condones that. They deserve to be punished.

BUT, I would not call it "torture," for that cheapens the word that describes what happens in North Korea and elsewhere. It's one thing to clip electrodes to someone; it's another to actually run current through them. If we call this "torture," what word do we use for what Saddam's regime did, or what Castro's minions still do?

It's the same thing as people who throw around "fascist" and "nazi" to mean people they don't like. That doesn't leave any words to describe what REAL totalitarian regimes are like.

I have to agree with you, Gary.

End the abuse; stop calling it torture.

Everything I read about this leads me to believe that those involved are being investigated and tried. I'm sure (as happens in any justice system) that some percent of the perpetrators will get off. It's also possible that some number of innocent people will be convicted, although we certainly want that number to approach zero.

I know the situation is wrong, but I don't understand the constant wailing about it.

The thing to remember about Guy Womack is that a defense attorney has to say *something* no matter how lame it is. He wouldn't be doing his job if he said, "Aw nuts! Just go ahead and throw the book at 'em!", now would he? That's one reason it's sometimes good to take lawyers with a grain of salt. ^_~

The "constant wailing" is the sound of everyone who supported Saddam finding an excuse to claim they were right.

It's clearly a form of pyschological torture to have electrodes strapped to you by you captors and being unable to know if they mean business or not. Most of us we be horrified (I hope!)if for example, our local police did stuff like this when they interrogate criminal suspects here. These incidents are serious and not to be taken lightly. The idiots at Abu Ghraib provided hostile media sources like Al Jezeera with great photo ops, for use in anti-US propagana. Images like these make it difficult for us to portray ourselves as liberators and give Iraqis reason not to trust us.
The fact that this isn't nearly as bad as what Hitler, Castro, etc. have done/are doing doesn't placate me. We are the United States. We should strive for a higher standard than that.

A pretty clear example of the Chewbacca defense.

And while we are on the subject of lame, may I take a moment to smile at liberals whose concern about Abu Gharib seems to be about "America's reputation" rather than about right or wrong? That really does seem to be a prime example of sociopathic thinking.

> The idiots at Abu Ghraib provided hostile media sources like Al Jezeera with great photo ops, for use in anti-US propagana.

Not relevant as they were running similar stuff before.

Two of the problems with the reputation argument are: (1) our reputation doesn't actually matter in this case and (2) this doesn't actually hurt it it.

There's also the "cry wolf" problem. When folks go ballistic about "not torture", having ignored actual torture, they're enabling future torture.

Since Bush is termed out, either said folks are irrational or they're after bigger fish. Either way, they're not "good" in any useful sense of the word.

Well, I underwent stuff as a West Point plebe, not to mention at the US Army's 9-week Ranger course, that were considerably more dreadful than anything that seems to have happened at Abu Ghraib. Of course, I was a volunteer; maybe that's the difference.

On balance, I don't think Americans have a fix on what's "torture" and what's just bad manners.

Small Pink Mouse,

As a self-avowed "liberal" I think I speak for the entire political phylosophy when I say that we don't think it is always required that we preface every statement made about this topic with "I think the incident at Abu Ghraib is aborant and not only that but..."

I think we do need to decide where the line is on exactly what constitutes torture. At present we have some people who think it's torture if we don't give prisoners their own tv. And others who don't think it's torture until it gets to the mutilation stage.
You can't really have a discussion on an undefined term.

"Not relevant as they were running similar stuff before."

What images did they have that were similar to this? Yes, of course they ran propaganda, but now they have actual images, not doctores, but admitted acts committed by U.S. forces. Propanda is one thing when its made from whole cloth. It's another when backed by true events.

may I take a moment to smile at liberals whose concern about Abu Gharib seems to be about "America's reputation" rather than about right or wrong?

It goes without saying that what happened at Abu Ghraib was wrong; the problem is when we have to try to reason with moral relativists who respond to "this is wrong" with "who cares? we can do anything we have to in order to WIN" and the only appropriate response is on that turf. If we said "it's wrong, full stop" a bunch of instapundit visitors would label us as unamerican pansies and go back to chuckling and smiling.

I'm chuckling and smiling at your daft assortment of prejudices, regardless.
Everyone agrees it was wrong.
But HOW WRONG?
Not as wrong as supporting Saddam.

If we said "it's wrong, full stop" a bunch of instapundit visitors would label us as unamerican pansies...

I'm not a "moral relevist." But neither do I think emotion is the proper approach here. Serious questions need to be asked: what is wrong, and why is it wrong? Our soldiers in combat need to have such answers addressed and answered. It isn't sufficient to throw up our hands and exclaim, "Oh, how ghastly!"

"The "constant wailing" is the sound of everyone who supported Saddam finding an excuse to claim they were right."

Look, if y'all are going to quibble about the definition of "torture" vs. "abuse" then I have SERIOUS problems with you equating "not wanting to go to war in iraq" with "supporting Saddam"

as if it's even relevant...

The take home message on the Abu Ghraib thing should be:

"Whatever you call it, it was wrong morally and it was stupid tactically. We're going to do everything we can to make sure it doesn't happen again."

No further qualifications are necessary.

"not wanting to go to war in iraq" / "supporting Saddam"
Tomato / tom-AH-to
Potato / pot-AH-to

"Whatever you call it, it was wrong morally and it was stupid tactically. We're going to do everything we can to make sure it doesn't happen again."
Yeah, that's all true.
You're right.

Everyone agrees it was wrong.
But HOW WRONG?
Not as wrong as supporting Saddam

Who was supporting Saddam?

I agree with Gary’s comments at 09:53 am and John Newquist’s at 10:32 am.

The actions at Abu Gharib were abuse and calling them “torture” cheapens the word and creates a false moral symmetry between the US and our foes which frankly seems to be the intention of those who have been throwing around the word.

Not as wrong as supporting Saddam.

Was that the alternative to putting people in naked pyramids and siccing dogs on them? Here, I assumed the alternative was not putting them in pyramids and not siccing dogs on them.

This thread has descended into self-parody. "If you disagree with me, well, Saddam was worse." Please. That hasn't even been funny since spring '03.

Erg.

It always seems to boil down to this.

Let's make it clear

Support for the war != Support for Abu Ghraib abuse

Not supporting the war != Supporting Saddam

Suggestion: those of us willing to kill the rhetoric and have an actual discussion should ignore those who refuse to do so.

John

Another thing the 'Torture-or-Abuse' hyperventilation ignores is that Graner & Co. were having fun. They were enjoying themselves.

Arguing solely about whether beating, sexual assault, dog siccing, coerced naked piling, coerced homosexual contact, thumb stomping, wall hanging, etc. is "abuse" or "torture" or "a sporting way to pass the time" is disingenuous. Circular disputes about which preferred universal maxim was violated, and to what extent, and whether or not it's somebody else's fault are just that: circular.

We should also be talking about what it means when we station some American troops in Saddam Hussein's national symbol for official oppression, and some take the opportunity to indulge in sadistic fantasies.

Graner & co. were enjoying themselves. They tortured/abused/humiliated/exploited/degraded Iraqi detainees for pleasure. Is that just bad manners?

Perhaps we should ask: Were Graner & co. deriving pleasure from torturing people, or from abusing people? To me, asking the question that way makes the pseudo-academic argument about 'torture-or-abuse?' look like smoke-and-mirrors.

Abu Ghraib has been a national embarrassment not just for what was done to those people, but why. That some people posting on this thread seem immune to such embarrassment is disturbing.

Andy Freeman, bad credit is not just a problem when you want a loan. It may affect your insurance rates, your ability to rent a car or an apartment, to get a job etc. As I said reputation matters.

I, for one, think the distinction between abuse, things which we don't approve of, torture, etc. is very important. In fact I think Graner and company are a side issue. What I am concerned about is not these sadistic creeps, but official policy. What is acceptable or not. Something which is unpleasant, say being forced to wear panties, may be abusive as entertainment for Graner and friends, but in an accountable situation is it a legitimate interrogation method? What can one threaten? What should we distinguish from beatings, rape, mutilation and severe pain? I am grappling with these issues and saying we can't distinguish between them isn't helpful and gives some people on this thread more room to rationalize whatever they want.

It seems like some of the commenters are not only a bit confused on the concept of torture, but they also missed the point of the original post. The original post invited people to mock the accused ringleader's attorney for making an outlandish argument. Mocking the attorney's defense, as most of the early comments did, points out that what Graner did was wrong, rather than excuse it.

But I read InstaPundit, so I'm able to grasp that rather obvious point. And should anyone want to get into the fine points of whether certain acts less than torture under either the International Convention on Torture (or the U.S. Senate's gloss on it in voting on it), I could do that, too. It always amuses me to read people who consider themselves to be so enlightened indiscriminately insulting others.

I still really like the photo of the female soldier (from West Virginia, of course) dragging the naked Iraqi prisoner on a leash.
I want a t-shirt with that photo on it.
And "This is what you get...." (apologies to Radiohead) for a logo.
As in - 'this is what you get, when you mess with us' - our GIRLS will come to your house, take away your guns and clothes, and drag your sorry ass around on a leash in front of the world.
So don't mess with Texas!
Or NYC!
Word.
Seriously: the more reactionary, fundamentalist, "macho-man" Arab terrorists who get that image rubbed in their faces, the better!
Am I right, or am I right?

McClain, have you been reading the news? Check out the Economist's article on the war in Iraq. The Economist is not a Commie mag by any stretch of the imagination... "This is what our GIRLS will do to you?" You think we are winning??

> It may affect your insurance rates, your ability to rent a car or an apartment, to get a job etc.

All of those are loans.

> As I said reputation matters.

And yet, you were unable to come up with a concrete relevant example. I'll repeat some of the criteria. "What do these folks have that we want AND we'll get if we don't put them in naked puppy piles? (Note, you have to show that those results were achieved before the piles and are still being achieved by those not associated with said piles.)"

Yes, "nobody," we win.
Saddam and his supporters lose.
We're the good guys, they're the bad guys.
Sometimes life really is that simple.
The Economist is a charming rag, veddy old-world in that BBC kinda way.
Not commie, true: more bookish, ruminative, endearingly feckless.
They've been wrong pretty much every step of the way.
Ya can't send a butler to do a cowboy's job.
You can, however, send a girl from West Virginia!
:-P

We're the good guys, they're the bad guys.
Sometimes life really is that simple.

True enough, but this doesn't justify every tactic that the good guys use to achieve their victory. The war effort would have gone on much the same way with or without Lynndie England give it a thumbs up or withouth Mr. Graner's victory pyramid.

Andy Freeman, actually they aren't loans.

As for what we want from Iraqi's, we want them to stop trying to kill our soldiers. Pointlessly humiliating the locals does not help.

Anyway I belive the original comment was speaking to America's reputation in the world at large from which we want lots of things including assistance in finding a face saving way out of Iraq.

This whole debate is rather silly. The United States began this war illegally, with no jusitification at all. Premptive warfare is illegal under International Law. Thus, arguably, American troops are not entitled to the provisions of the Geneva Convention either. You can't have it both ways. The U.S. can't exempt itself from the Geneva rules and then get its collective shorts in a bunch about harsh treatment of its troops in Iraq, too, to say nothing of those contractors who got more than they contracted for. End this idiotic war and this discussion, at least as it pertains to Iraq, goes "poof".

> Andy Freeman, actually they aren't loans.

Sure they are. Apartments and cars are worth something. That's why you're paying rent.

> Anyway I belive the original comment was speaking to America's reputation in the world at large from which we want lots of things including assistance in finding a face saving way out of Iraq.

While that was the intent of the comment, it isn't actually true.

If we want to leave, we can leave without anyone's assistance.

The bleatings of folksk who'd rather have Saddam still in power notwithstanding, this is Iraq's shot at not being yet another mid-east horrorshow.

Odds are that they're going to blow it, but the US is giving them the chance.

"Premptive warfare is illegal under International Law."
I don't remember voting for any "International Laws."
So, until I have some say in who writes 'em and who enforces 'em, "International Law" can get down on its hands and knees and kiss my yeah-whatevers.
Ain't nothin respectable about bendin over for some self-appointed "International Lawyers!"

More re: "International Law": if preemptive war is "illegal," what war is legal by these lights? An unprovoked attack - go back far enough and doesn't every war come down to one or more of these? - is functionally identical to preemption, isn't it? (Note that I said "functionally.") Therefore the aggressor, whoever it is, has broken "International Law" (which I might point out exists solely at the sufferance of the powerful) and is ineligible for the Geneva Conventions. Yes? So we should expect and accept that our captured combatants, uniformed and as a group abiding by the "laws of war," will be tortured - to say nothing of civilian noncombatants -, while we are constrained to treat an un-uniformed enemy who hides in civilian and sometimes holy places according to Geneva? Who is abiding by more of the rules here?

The debt we and, especially, every otherwise-powerless person or nation, owe to Common Law is so great it defies description.

"So we should expect and accept that our captured combatants, uniformed and as a group abiding by the "laws of war," will be tortured - to say nothing of civilian noncombatants -, while we are constrained to treat an un-uniformed enemy who hides in civilian and sometimes holy places according to Geneva? Who is abiding by more of the rules here?"

Quite the opposite. We shouldn't be outraged by reports of Iraqis roughing up allied troops, as there have been, if we are going to excuse blatant human rights violations by our side. It may be trite, but what comes around goes around. As for who is abiding by more of the rules, I don't think either side has a good record from the start of this war on.

"We shouldn't be outraged"

You're forgetting that most of us are on one side or the other.
Those of us on the anti-terrorist/anti-Saddam side are naturally outraged at the other side whenever it does anything besides surrender or die.
Do you consider yourself a neutral party in this conflict?
If so: watch your back.
Both my side AND the enemy consider neutrality a sign of either moral incompetence or shameful depravity.

Do you consider yourself a neutral party in this conflict?
If so: watch your back.

I do consider myself neutral in the U.S-Iraq war. I am not a citizen of either nation. As for watching my back, I take care of myself very well, little man and don't give a fig what you think qualifies as "moral depravity." From what I have seen of your writings on here, your own sense of what is moral is indeed twisted.

We shouldn't be outraged"

That's only part of my quote,sir. If you are going to quote me, at least have the decency to do so accurately. I wrote that we shouldn't be outraged by reports of Iraqis beating allied prisoners if we are supporting allied troops doing the same thing to theirs.

It must be very nice for you that you can "take care of yourself" so very well, Mr. Scrimm.
And I don't want any figs from you, anyhow.

But, as a "neutral," you must be using the "we" in "we shouldn't be outraged" to indicate all those who don't care whether the U.S. or the Saddamite/terrorist faction triumphs in Iraq.

I fail to see why creatures so devoid of moral sense would ever profess outrage over anything.
And why argue so heatedly about a matter on which you feign such indifference, hmmm?

And I don't want any figs from you, anyhow.
N.B. that I didn't say I wasn't going to give a fig to you if in fact I gave one. You strike me as being not sophisticated enough to enjoy them anyway.

Naw, I ain't sophisticated. Jes' a reg'lar ol' hillbilly. Shucks, I couldn't tell a fig from a durian.
I am, in fact, originally from West Virginia. Which probably explains my unreasonable sympathy for that soldier girl I was talkin' about further back on this increasingly inane and off-topic thread.

Andy,

The difference in rent and loans is that with a loan, you're given something you haven't paid for. When you rent, say, an apartment, you pay for the use of that apartment for one month, then you get to use it.

The fact that you sign a lease saying you'll continue paying for X months doesn't make the rent equivalent to a loan, because a failure to pay for the apartment will simply get you evicted.

I understand the reasoning for basing decisions on rental cars, apartments, etc. on credit scores (I don't necessarily agree with it, but I understand the reasonsing), but it's NOT because those things are equivalent to a loan.

Comments are Closed.