What conservatives believe about torture
As near as I've been able to figure, this is what conservatives believe about torture:
1. It wasn't that bad anyway.
2. Saddam Hussein/terrorists were/are worse.
3. Besides, they deserved it anyway.
Finally, they will fall back on flat-out justifying torture if necessary:
4. Torture is OK if the President says so.
posted by Luke Francl @ 10:23 PM |
| 
25 Comments:
Very good summary. Thanks.
Unfortunately, it doesn't capture the full emotional qualities that the Right puts into those lame rationalizations. Those qualities are equally disturbing and I felt compelled to post a brief rant on that a few days ago:
On the Geneva Conventions prohibition of torture.
i'm sorry that more people aren't jumping on your bandwagon. But then again, most people don't spend there waiking hours condeming evey fucking move our government makes. A Nutbag walks towards a marine convoy and they don't shoot his sorry ass and when he gets close enough he blows himself up and kills 11 marines. But hey, At least you can sit here in Minnesota and feel good about yourself because the USA is playing fair.These people rather fucking kill you and your family than a soldier. if we need to rough them up to get info that could save lives then so be it. And yes there are some instances that need to be addressed but as usual with the New patriot the sky is falling, the sky is falling.( Conservatives believe in doing what it takes to keep us safe, and you don't.)That sounds as stupid as your post. My name is Scott K.
Unfortunately, the above example does seem to demonstrate what passes for"conservatism" these days. If you want to see what the "old fashioned salt of the earth type" think, then drop by a forum run by any small daily newspaper. I regularly post on my local Daily paper's forums, http://forums.brainerddispatch.com/cgi-bin/bb/ultimatebb.cgi , and I can tell you that here, in one of Minnesota's "red" counties, these kinds of insane notions are not only normal they are even laudable, at least if you're the kind of grunting pig that has come to represent "conservatism". "Conservative" is something just a few little steps short of real live no-shit Fascism these days.
Time was, when Barry Goldwater was still alive, a "conservative" was someone who believed in:
• A balanced budget
• A strong defense
• No government intervention in a citizen's personal matters
Funny how, given perspective, these simple ideas seem principled or even quaint compared to what "conservatism" has come to mean now. Now you can see why John McCain is described as a "maverick" Republican.
Here's what I've been able to figure, this is what liberals believe about torture:
1. Cutting off heads isn't torture, its an expression of outrage at the oppression of men who want to oppress women. Besides, sometimes they do it to Jews so its OK.
2. There is moral equivalence between having a dog bark at someone and killing someone's children and beating, raping, executing them.
3. No one is so bad that they need to be punished. They're just misunderstood. Sept 11 could have been alot different if some people who needed it had gotten a hug.
Finally, not matter what is done or for what reason,
4. The military is ALWAYS wrong. Although if they would unionize we'd get past that.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
One should be judged on the severity of torture administered and on the circumstances leading to torture but should not be circumvented from the penalties. Sure, in a sense having barking K-9 lunge at detainees' genitals does not equate to the finality of a beheading, but torture is torture. Wrongdoing is wrongdoing. There is no difference in the criminal activity of someone who "donated" $100 to Al-Qaeda as opposed to someone "donating" $1000000 to Al-Qaeda.
What an amazing tapestry of opinion.
Re: Anon. Post from Scott: "Roughing them up" doesn't work. It never has. Torture not only produces bad information, it is a PR disaster that actually endangers more troops. If we want to save lives we have to take the high road. That means absolutely living up to our ideals as a nation. We still kill people we think might be suicide bombers. We just have have fewer suicide bombers. I don't condemn every move the government makes, just the really stupid ones that endanger the lives of working soldiers and besmirches the good name of our country.
Anonymous #2:
There are plenty of conservatives who really do believe as Luke posts. Show me one liberal, or anyone for that matter, who thinks like you are describing in your insane pastiche of lies.
ChrisHow about the nitwit who wrote, "There is no difference in the criminal activity of someone who "donated" $100 to Al-Qaeda as opposed to someone "donating" $1000000 to Al-Qaeda."
The only thing I can say to that; Can I "borrow" $100?
"There are plenty of conservatives who really do believe as Luke posts. Show me one liberal, or anyone for that matter, who thinks like you are describing in your insane pastiche of lies."
I usually let this type of inane comment stand on it's own idiocy, but this one just has to be answered.
Here ya go sport:
Bigley's Beheading Understandable Says Freed Reporter
"An Australian TV journalist who was kidnapped and freed by Iraqi militants was under attack today for saying that the executions of British and American hostages were understandable."
Here's one from people that Dykstra can relate to:
Terrorism: An Evil or Understandable Reaction to the American Bully?"From the day the World Trade Center was demolished by terrorists, George W. Bush identified the conflict as a battle between good and evil."
"Rep. Kaptur (D) Ohio, on the other hand, as a member of the Democratic Socialist “Progressive Caucus” in Congress, represents those who see America as “the bully on the block” as she put it in on her campaign website before the 2002 Election."
Here's some more..open wide:
"Bin Laden isn't a loose cannon trying to bring the world to Armageddon. He's an eloquent and rational actor, more CEO than gangster. He often blames Muslims for their failure to repel Western invaders. His analyses of al-Qaida's victories and defeats are often more cogent than Western leaders' tirades against him.
When you swallow that load, here's another for you to chew on:
Horrific results of opinion polls featuring Muslim reaction to 9/11 are now released for the first time.Of those interviewed,
- 91% said they supported and rejoiced the attacks of 9/11.
- 89% said America deserved to be attacked because it is an infidel country that supports the Jews.
- 83% said 9/11 inspired so much zeal in them that they themselves were willing to volunteer as suicide bombers to carry out attacks against targets in America or Israel.
- 94% said that 9/11 attackers died as shaheed ( martyrs.)
- 87% said that 9/11 marked the beginning of the end for America.
- 88% said that they supported more attacks on America.
Here's more:
(I probably didn't need to provide a link for this one, just pick up your current issue of "Socialist Alternative" off the coffee table.)
"Thirty-nine car bombs exploded in September compared to 34 in August - one killed over 30 children in Baghdad."
"Responsibility for this horrific incident was ostensibly [I love it..ostensibly..] claimed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his Tawhid wa-Jihad group."
"US imperialism's propaganda has attempted to portray al-Zarqawi as the main 'bogey-man' of the insurgency, ascribing to him much greater influence than he actually has, in order to tar all those fighting against the US occupation with the same brush.I could fill a ten volume set with this kind of crap from "progressives" and their ilk. What an asinine remark Chris.
Calm down and read what you posted. And try not to post so much in a row -- it's annoying.
I am not going to address what these people said (I'm not going to defend every stupid statement made by people who oppose torture), but even the worst of it is nothing like what the anonymous poster wrote. "Sometimes they do it to Jews so its [sic] OK"? That's just nonsense. It's hyperbole, I know. But my post wasn't hyperbole, it was a summary of real conservative reactions to the Abu Ghraib scandal.
As for the "nitwit" who said giving $100 to Al Qaeda is like giving $1000000 to Al Qaedia, maybe you should re-read his post. He was saying there's no acceptable amount of support you can give to Al Qaeda. It's all wrong.
Regarding Imperial Hubris, uh, that guy's not a liberal. He's a hard core terrorist ball-buster. He says Bin Laden's not motivated because he "hates our freedom." Instead, he wants what he says he wants: US out of Israel, US out of Saudi Arabia, etc. Predictably, he was ignored by Bush for whatever reason.
Get your head on straight, Swiftee. These are the facts. The Red Cross estimates 75% of the people in Abu Ghraib were innocent. 100% of them were covered under the Geneva Convention. It wasn't a dog barking at some guy. It was systematic abuse: dogs biting prisoners, torturing children in front of parents, smothering prisoners in their own feces, anal rape with a chemical light, and death. People died, maybe innocent people. Will you bring them back with your justifications? Will you bring back the Iraqi respect we lost? This is not a joke. This is serious business.
See, unlike -- aparently -- you, I want to win in Iraq.
Luke
I wonder if you have any idea just how ridiculous you truly are. You wrote, "These are the facts. The Red Cross estimates..."
Do you really see an estimate as "the facts?" Is your view so warped that anything that fits it is beyond question while all the contrary evidence is "annoying"?
i am currently reading Imperial Hubris and it makes tremendous sense. we must conduct the war on terror in a way that corrects the problem. not just for revenge.
proponentofreason.blogspot.com
Learn how to read and parse English, anonymous.
It is a fact that the Red Cross estimates that up to 75% of detainees at Abu Ghraib were innocent.
You can debate their estimate all you want, but the fact is that they made it.
P.S.: I'll trust the credibility of the Red Cross over the Bush administration and their apologists any day of the week.
"100% of them were covered under the Geneva Conventions"
You ever read the conventions goofball? Here is the definition of prisioners of war:
Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
The terrorist insurgency does not meet these requirements. They hide their weapons, they do not wear insignia, they do not respect any laws or customs ove human decency much less of war.
We don't have the right to torture them. We have rejected the Abu Grabe incident from the highest offices and punished those responsible.
But there are plenty of "progressives" who are perfectly willing to defend the fucking animals who are chopping the heads off of innocent, unarmed civilians one of whom did nothing more than spend her life trying to assist them just to take a couple of cheap shots at the US.
So do me a favor. Keep your whiny, self rightous, self serving condemnations to yourselves. You want to win the war? Take your own advice and shut the fuck up.
You're out in the cold, Swiftee. Even the Bush administration admits that the detainees (the Iraqi ones, anyway) were covered under the Geneva convention.
But then, they couldn't get away with so much without torture justifiers like you, now could they?
Keep up the good work.
And on the subject of possibly innocent Abu Ghraib detainees, listen to a minute or two of what Sgt. First Class Roger Brokaw, Army reservist/ military intelligence interrogator out of Fort Snelling who worked for six months at Abu Ghraib, had to say on that subject.
If you're not going to listen, I'll summarize the part to which I'm referring. They had quotas. And his estimate from his time there was that "that 98% of the detainees were there for no reason at all."
The whole hour was a good listen, and probably would be for people on all corners of the opinion tapestry. You can find the rest of the program here... and you can believe what you want, I guess.
If we were fighting a standing Army, the Conventions would be appropriate. Special considerations are given to soldiers in uniform, ultimately designed to protect innocent civilians. But the terrorists of today are worse than the spies of earlier wars who were summarily executed.
During WWII there was a lot of similar whinning from the left. History continues to show Freedom & Democracy comes with prices to be paid something Liberals have a hard time understanding.
The Doctor
The Doctor... so you're saying the Geneva Conventions don't apply when you're invading Iraq and torturing innocent civilians? Hmm. Interesting. And the people who disagree with what you're saying, these Liberals -- they would be, say - the military, and (oh, I don't know) the rest of western society?
Yeah. You go ahead and sacrifice your freedoms for your insane worldview - I'm keeping my higher standards, thanks.
Luke - open your mind.
Estimates are not facts and the "fact" someone estimates hardly makes it worth labeling a fact unless someone is trying to attribute to another source. Then it might be meaningful.
Then again, what can you expect from people who's idea of a complete defense is "What does 'is' mean?"
Trying to discredit the Red Cross as some lefty organization - I love it. Please do me a favor. Don't change, unless it's to become more extreme and more whacko.
No one said anything about the Red Cross being a lefty organization. A guy could heat a neighborhood burning the strawmen laying around here.
However, one could legitimately wonder how an aid organization could claim to have come by a reliable formula for deciding who is "innocent". The best intelligence agencies in the world have been trying to do that for years; maybe the Red Cross is in the wrong business.
I am conservative and I will TAKE YOUR CHALLENGE for someone to say otherwise! If you really want to know my credentials I have volunteered at the Center for Victims of Torture for the past 6-7 months. I am very against the torture acts that have happened. And dont generalize us if you dont want us to generalize you. You hippy, vegetarian, would rather have animals more rights then people, whinning, bleeding heart, leftist prick.
Post a Comment
<< Home