Murder at Gitmo?
In harping on this story, I continue to be among a minority that deems it more important than the Massachusetts Senate race, the John Edwards love child, and everything else dominating the news cycle save Haiti, but I hope you’ll nevertheless do me the favor of considering my argument.
Nope – sorry. Don’t think it’s as important as either you or Sullivan say. Your and Sullivan’s incoherence on this in comparison to other overwhelming issues in the war on terror and both of your lack of context in to other things that happen “normally” in both military and civilian prisons creates a null zone around your arguements.
Currently, we have an ongoing drone war in AfPak that totally lacks either a formal declaration or due process. We kill without oversight and generally totally discount survivors accounts of civilian killed. Gitmo has not become any more of a terrorist training ground than state prisons are training grounds for criminals. You lack context for your outrage and therefore any sort of moral validity.
Get off your sanctimonious soap box, please. This is getting old.
— M00se · Jan 21, 07:40 PM · #
Conor: If I may address the skeptics on the right directly, it is penny wise and pound foolish to worry about creeping tyranny…when we’re another terrorist attack away from popular support for an archipelago of secret prisons where anyone can be whisked away and tortured without any evidence against them.
Um, wouldn’t that warning be more fittingly addressed to those who discount the significance of the terrorist threat, or undermine our ability to acquire intelligence, or protest against things like the Patriot Act — i.e., the left?
If ‘A’ leads to ‘B’, and ‘B’ is really really bad, then you should be talking to those who shriek with outrage every time we take rational steps to avoid ‘A’.
That’s just simple logic, man. Lesser of two evils etc etc. For an example, see the Tupamaros. If you’re panties are in a wad about an equal and opposite reaction, the smart thing to do is avoid the action. See Newton.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Jan 21, 07:58 PM · #
Conor,
While I agree with MOOse that your piece lacks context, you also seem to get your facts confused. To wit, you say:
“The Obama administration is to be commended for ending the torture of detainees.”
But it was the Bush Administration that formally ended the practice of waterboarding, which is the only form of torture they officially sanctioned. The rest of the torture or abuse was NOT officially sanctioned and the folks who committed these acts knew they were breaking the law or they wouldn’t try and cover-up their crimes in the first place.
— Arminius · Jan 21, 08:04 PM · #
The story of the Gitmo three is different from Predator drone strikes for a couple reasons: it likely involves the murder of captive prisoners; and multiple US government agencies are complicit in covering it up. It is therefore corrupting in ways that the other stuff mentioned isn’t. Also, please quote the passage you deem sanctimonius.
— Conor friedersdorf · Jan 21, 08:11 PM · #
Let me reiterate:
You admit that the worst of all possible outcomes is “popular support for an archipelago of secret prisons” where anyone, including Scots-Irish, gun-toting granny, can be whisked away and tortured for no reason whatsoever. You assert that this will happen if we have another massive terrorist attack.
If those two premises are in fact true, the conclusion is inescapable, laddy: the right’s policy of aggressive preemption is your best bet by far.
To end, don’t you find it a little bit presumptuous to say that the GOP “must reckon with the illegal, immoral acts” of Bush, when farther down you admit that we don’t, and probably never will, know exactly what happened.
Ask people to reckon with facts, not atone for uncertainty. To demand contrition for a suspicion, well, that’s just un-Amurican.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Jan 21, 08:26 PM · #
Sanctimonious in tone and concept. I refer more to Sullivan’s spittle flecked screeds announcing the end of democracy as we know it due to Gitmo. You know the ones. However to address the crimes that possibly occured in Gitmo as more important than a clearly illegal war in Pakistan (for instance) is to elevate your judgment out of its depth.
So killing captives is worse than killing unsuspecting civilians? How so? And in what context is the later worse than the former? Gitmo, “torture” and abuses of power are inherent to that sort of system. Trying to reform the military, or prosecute the people who established those systems are usually doomed to failure. Yelling about such a limited occurance of injustice is futile at best. War is, by its nature, messy. There is no particularly convincing argument regarding why this injustice is less or more horrific than the other examples given.
We kill people just like “they” kill people. That is the crux of war. We call one thing wrong. They call another thing wrong. In war, in the aftermath, there is only the victors. Not much else matters in the history books. Just war arguments matter only to theologians. Not to armies.
— M00se · Jan 21, 09:26 PM · #
I’m sorry, but is there any serious person who believes that there’s a course of action that can be taken that will ensure absolutely zero terrorist attacks for the rest of eternity? Surely the stupidity of that position doesn’t need to be explained.
Since a future terror attack is inevitable – even if any individual terror attack isn’t – the best response is to ensure that the American way of life is resilient in the face of attacks. The “left” is hard at work trying to make that happen, by not rolling back our civil liberties, by not weakening the protections that prevent the intelligence machine from being subverted into a tool of domestic oppression, by ensuring that simply being called a “terrorist” isn’t used as an excuse to suborn due process. (After all, anyone – even you, KVS! – can be called a terrorist.)
If “A” is inevitable, then the best bet is to decouple A from B. That’s the project of the “left.” (Actually, the center.) The scared-shitless right is ready to lock themselves in protective custody. Remind me why these gutless cowards are considered “strong on terrorism”?
But Arminus, aside from the fact you know you’re lying about this – they covered up the waterboarding. They covered up the illegal, warrantless wiretapping. Doesn’t that disprove your claim?
— Chet · Jan 21, 10:08 PM · #
Setting aside issues of inevitability, I have no problem with that. In fact, I’m pretty sure, sanguine even, that A won’t lead to B unless A comes with a mushroom cloud. And that’s very very unlikely to happen. For the foreseeable future, we citizens are pretty solid on rights and protections, even with the occasional and short-lived excesses in surveillance and detainment.
I wasn’t arguing from preferences or belief. I was arguing logic. Conor’s argument was A—>B, and B is bad. If we take that as given — if we argue on his terms — then without a doubt his advice is targeted at the wrong crowd.
That’s pretty easy to see, right? One group will do anything to stop A, another will do the minimum, another can’t be bothered. If A—>B, which group makes B less likely?
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Jan 21, 10:51 PM · #
And before anybody corrects me, I’m assuming nothing else will lead to B. So, yes, what I really mean is (A —> B and ~A —> ~B).
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Jan 21, 10:58 PM · #
Quite the contrary. If we argue on his terms, that detention camps and secret torture sites represent a threat to liberty and the first steps to tyranny, then his argument is directed at precisely the right crowd: the crowd that is in favor of detention camps and secret torture sites.
— Chet · Jan 21, 10:59 PM · #
I suppose it’s too much to ask, but you do recognize the difference, not just in degree but in kind, between current detainee and interrogation practices and “an archipelago of secret prisons where anyone can be whisked away and tortured without any evidence against them,” no? That’s Conor’s language, you know. As in “his terms.” As in, “if we argue on his terms.” As in, what I explicitly said I was doing. Which you should know because you quoted it. Unless for some reason you forgot what we were talking about on your way from ctrl-C to ctrl-V?
Anywho, I’m officially bored with this conversation. If Conor wants me to clarify, I might. Otherwise, it’s 5 o’clock and time to drink.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Jan 21, 11:13 PM · #
It’s a shame to see Conor embracing a conspiracy theory that would make a Birther blush. (Maybe he’s spending too much time around Andrew Sullivan and the crazy is rubbing off.) I wrote about why this is all silly here: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/01/21/on-the-shameful-murders-at-gitmo-conspiracy/
— Joe Carter · Jan 21, 11:36 PM · #
What difference do you think there is, exactly? Our “current detainee and interrogation practices” don’t require substantive evidence, involve being “whisked off” to secret black sites around the world, and judging by who has been picked up and interrogated, apparently anyone could be next.
So, no. I recognize no difference, because there is none.
— Chet · Jan 22, 02:47 AM · #
Joe – your argument seems to consist of little more than repeating the claims in the Harper’s piece in a sarcastic tone of voice. What’s supposed to be far-fetched about the idea that members of the military do what they’re told to do?
— Chet · Jan 22, 03:08 AM · #
It is quite a stretch that something like this could be kept secret under a new oppositional administation. Like all cover-ups, it requires a lot of people following the script — all the way to Obama.
— mike farmer · Jan 22, 04:09 AM · #
What’s supposed to be far-fetched about the idea that members of the military do what they’re told to do?
What’s wrong with the idea that members of the military would cover-up three murders because they were told to do so? Well, let’s start with the fact that it’s a slanderous, completely unsubstantiated claim, that has no corroborating evidence to back it up. I served in the military for fifteen years and know the culture well.
The idea that you could get five people from one unit to help cover up something up is plausible. The idea that you could get two different branches, dozens of enlisted people, another dozen officers, an entire medical staff, and NCIS to help you cover up three murders is not even in the realm of possibility.
You are talking about the greatest cover-up in the history of the United States. The reason I am merely being sarcastic is because it doesn’t deserve more than that. It’s the same reason I don’t waste time on the claims of Birthers or 9/11 Truthers.
— Joe Carter · Jan 22, 04:10 AM · #
Well, except for three dead bodies, the forensic evidence, and the testimony of multiple witnesses.
And so no member of the military could possibly be involved in a criminal conspiracy? Or, are you saying the military can’t keep secrets? Or are you simply testifying to the character of literally every member of the military? I don’t understand the relevance of this claim.
Why? The people in whose personal interest it would be to keep it a secret can be relied upon to participate. Everybody else can simply be ordered to. Are you saying the military can’t keep a secret? (It’s worth noting that they didn’t keep it very well, since we know about it. Sure, maybe it’s unreasonable to believe in all that many people keeping the secret perfectly. But they didn’t keep it perfectly. Several people have already blabbed.)
Hardly. We’re talking about some people keeping the secret because they’re complicit in three acts of felony murder, some people keeping the secret because they were ordered to do so, and still other people keeping the secret because its in their political advantage to do so. You hardly need literally everyone in the Army, the NCIS, the DoJ, and so on to take part. Most of them won’t even know about it. Why would they need to?
You don’t need “dozens of enlisted personnel.” When a report is released by the NCIS it’s not released by every single member of the NCIS.
And what about all the stuff you can’t explain? The missing necks? Why a teenager about to be released from Gitmo would “commit suicide”?
— Chet · Jan 22, 04:49 AM · #
I say:
“The rest of the torture or abuse was NOT officially sanctioned and the folks who committed these acts knew they were breaking the law or they wouldn’t try and cover-up their crimes in the first place.”
Chet says:
“But Arminus, aside from the fact you know you’re lying about this – they covered up the waterboarding. They covered up the illegal, warrantless wiretapping. Doesn’t that disprove your claim?”
I say:
1) How does Chet know I’m lying?! Maybe I’m just confused or wrong, but why do I have to be lying?!
2) I’m not sure what you mean by “they [meaning the Bush Administration] covered up the waterboarding”? I know they weren’t eager to let al-Qaeda know about our enhanced interrogation techniques, but it is my understanding that these techniques were shared with the relevant Congressional oversight committees (although some Democratic members have expressed a certain memory lapse when convenient). So what do you mean that the Bush Administration “covered up” the waterboarding?
3) I disagree the wiretapping done by the Bush Administration was illegal, but putting that aside for the moment, again why do you claim this was covered up? Isn’t it more accurate to say the Bush Administration didn’t want the world to know what they were doing so al-Qaeda wouldn’t take precautions to not use their phones?
— Arminius · Jan 22, 05:07 AM · #
You’re making a claim that I know you know is false.
“Torture” is the word you’re looking for.
Well, but this is just too cute by half. How would you tell the difference between failing to disclose as a security measure, and failure to disclose to conceal legal culpability?
— Chet · Jan 22, 05:19 AM · #
Why would he even know?
— Chet · Jan 22, 05:27 AM · #
Chet,
I’m sure you saw Joe’s detailed response to you over at “First Thoughts”, but if not he answers your silly questions:
“And what about all the stuff you can’t explain? The missing necks? Why a teenager about to be released from Gitmo would “commit suicide”?”
At least get your facts straight before posting your inane comments.
- Arminius
P.S. You are right about one thing — waterboarding is torture and I wish we never did it on KSM. I also wish the Obama Administration granted him his wish and executed him.
— Arminius · Jan 22, 05:29 AM · #
Un-fucking-believable. I’ve had to write this post three times. Better commenting software, please!
No, he doesn’t. He’s evading them. Sure, so Yasser Talal Al-Zahrani was 17 when he was picked up, not when he died. That doesn’t answer my question about what possible motive a man about to be freed could have for suicide. And, sure, it’s the “neck organs”, whatever that means, but it doesn’t answer my question about why they’re missing, when coroners examine them in situ as part of a forensic investigation. There’s no reason to remove them to determine cause of death. The only reason to remove them is to obscure cause of death.
— Chet · Jan 22, 06:10 AM · #
As a point of comparison, hundreds of people died in the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, but despite the involvement of over 200 people and the cooperation of the Public Health Service and the Centers for Disease Control it remained a perfect secret for just over 50 years. Concealing a mere three murders in a CIA black site doesn’t strike me as a significant conspiracy. What’s the point in even having a black site if it’s not to make it easy to cover up the things that happen there?
— Chet · Jan 22, 06:20 AM · #
Yes, you’re right…
— SEO · Jan 22, 08:50 AM · #
“Why would he even know?”
In other words, you know, but the president doesn’t?
— mike farmer · Jan 22, 12:51 PM · #
For those who think that tying Obama on this is some sort of winning play, um no. Obama may well be complicit in a coverup here. And if he is, I’d like to see him go down for it too. I don’t care whether the people involved in this have a D or an R after their names. The information available strongly suggests criminal acts. Investigate, and, if warranted, bring charges.
Crazy, I know.
— Rob in CT · Jan 22, 05:28 PM · #
I don’t understand your point, I guess. I know about it because I read the article in Harpers. Same with Obama, I presume. You seem to be saying that makes the two of us part of the cover-up. That strikes me as pretty stupid.
— Chet · Jan 22, 10:52 PM · #
Chet,
I hate to break it to you, but Wikipedia is not the most reliable source of information about American history (especially since much of that history is written by goofy lefties like you):
http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2008/04/the_truth_about_tuskegee.html
Once you are done unraveling the mysteries of Gitmo, please do some work on Area 51 and get back to us.
— Arminius · Jan 23, 03:42 AM · #
“http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2008/04/the_truth_about_tuskegee.html”
This website, and the essay it references, are unmitigated bullshit. Syphilis only infrequently enters the latent stage.
Even if the claims of this absurd website were true, they hardly contradict my point. Like nearly everything you post, Arminius, they’re an irrelevancy to the issue at hand.
— Chet · Jan 23, 06:11 AM · #