A recent story in TIME magazine tells the extent to which the Rumsfeld Department of Defense had knowingly used torture to interrogate terrorist suspects in Guantanamo, Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Time story also explains that
Opponents of last week’s release of memos detailing CIA interrogation techniques argue that they will provide enemies of the United States with a training manual to prepare their operatives for capture. The irony is that the U.S. military appears to have done the exact opposite, taking a training program that had been designed to prepare American soldiers to withstand torture by communist regimes seeking to extract false confessions and twisting it into a highly controversial interrogation manual.
I recently wrote about the absurdity of these opponents’ argument in that the presumption of anyone, whether inside or outside the U.S., should be that they will not be mistreated when in U.S. custody. Thus no one should ever have to prepare for questioning by U.S. authorities.
And guess what? The Bush Government did not only borrow money to finance its tax cuts and wars from the Chinese. It also borrowed heavily from a Chinese handbook on torturing Americans as the basis for U.S. interrogation training program.
The final irony: the torture techniques around which the [torture] training was devised were used by Chinese interrogators during the Korean War, not to gather actionable intelligence but to force false confessions from captured U.S. soldiers — confessions that could then be used in anti-American propaganda.
Grave Error 
I recently wrote about the absurdity of these opponents’ argument in that the presumption of anyone, whether inside or outside the U.S., should be that they will not be mistreated when in U.S. custody. Thus no one should ever have to prepare for questioning by U.S. authorities.
War isn’t pretty, neither in preparation, execution or finality. That’s the preposterously induced delusion of the weak minded and fearful. Torture has always been used, inside and out of war, nothing new.
But why should the U.S. be held to a different standard? Can an American soldier expect any type of amnesty from a Muslim captor? Hmmmmm, wait, I remember … they like beat, starve, and denigrate their captives and then make a video of beheading them.
This is the same garbage as the Geneva Conventions, to which, in actuality, only the U.S., Britain and possibly Australia are held accountable.
Muslims can use non-military, unidentifiable dress, (violation), unlawful devices such as roadside bombs, (violation), unidentifiable vehicles, (violation), and even children, (violation), for an advantage in guerrilla tactics.
It’s called war. That’s homo sapien at its most “human”. Good for the goose, good for the gander.
Before you rebuke, keep in mind, I personally know a U.S. marine who was in Baghdad and was forced to gun down a female Muslim child, (approx. age 6 – 8), who was packed with a bomb, trying to get into a group of Marines, and not for tea and teddy bear time …
So let’s get real here, who’s the monster in this scenario?
I suppose, based on your scenario, we’ve all become monsters.
By the way, I don’t see the relevance in saying that “Muslims” are permitted to use these tactics, for these are universal tactics. Those invaded have always used the same “tactics” from the Minutemen in 1776 to the Spanish guerrillas against the French (from which the term guerrilla first comes into use), the Vietnamese and now the Iraqis.
What others do in defense of their nations — remember, we invaded Iraq and the sole beneficiary is Exxon Mobile — is not my concern. I am only concerned with what we do as a nation. Also remember that not everyone interrogated at Guantanamo or in the black sites were “captured” on the battle field.
I used the term “monster” because of the overbearing media picture you present. It seemed only apt. This is humans doing, as you so clearly illustrate for both of us, what humans have always done. Although, we have “become” nothing, as that would infer a change not observed; we are still the same animal we have been over a quarter million years.
But again, whilst you are so busy bashing the U.S., try being just a touch objective.
In our country, stoning women is not allowed, for any reason.
In our country, women and children are not legally “property and possessions” of a male; in the same manner as a mule, goat or a camel. To be disposed of, with equal disregard.
In our country, we have some manner of due process ~ not religious mob rule that calls for beheadings, stonings, mutilations based upon perceptions of repute or lack thereof.
That you say what other nations do in defense of their country is not your concern, clearly shows a lack objectivity. Whether invading Iraq was proper or improper is the domain of International Law, and that is the government’s domain ~ like it or not, that is the system we have continually supported.
But these are not internationally recognized combat individuals, for which there are supposedly laws. They can break any/every law, with impugnity, at all levels … and according to your line of thinking, it is satisfactory to do so … but not for the U.S. Interesting that you fail to address those issues I have brought up about the behavior of Muslims; continual human rights atrocities ~ but let me posit an approximation: they aren’t from the U.S., and it’s their culture, so equivocation is the rule?
As far as whether captives came from the battlefield ~ non sequitur. How many civilian contractors were taken captive/slaughtered; beaten, tortured and beheaded. Remember the reporter who was beheaded, Perle, I believe the name was?
I am only concerned with what we do as a nation.
This is an illogical position, at the minimum. Also, not genuine, considering a great number of your other posts.
What we do as a nation, is absolutely no different than those things done by other nations ~ where socio-cultural biases are unilaterally applied to the algorithm, as any objective individual would correctly do.
To be human, is to be animal, like any other creature. Anthropocentric delusion changes nothing; except the perceptions derived from a conversation.
Sum sic sum
We obviously view things very differently.
For example, that we do not have a religious mob calling for the torture of our enemies without due process. That is precisely what the Bush Administration did, supported by a Christian rhetoric of good versus evil.
Media perception vs. actuality of motivations.
Follow the money, (expression of power to validate the ego of the unfit), and you will find the difference between “reality” and the actuality of the motivations. Rhetoric, as America will learn again, with Obama, does not equate to veracity or validity.
Iraq has nothing to do with religious motivations; nor anything to do with WMD’s, Osama bin Laden, or insurgents.
Also, don’t misconstrue. There will be no support for Christendom or so called Christian behaviors, coming from me; I find no reason to support any religion or dogma.
“God” is almost the ultimate laughable error; second only to the religions that arise in support of that error.
But in the end, you still aren’t being objective about the situation. Muslims have never done anything but wage war, murder and slaughter, indiscriminately, for at least the completeness of recorded history. Kurds, Sunni, Shia, whatever other idiotic derivations they’ve deluded themselves into, (much like Chistendom … sheesh, I don’t know how many there are actually), they’ll all kill each other over the perception of offense over induced assumptions predicated on … ???? Yeah, whatever.
That is the epitome of competitive abject stupidity.
News flash:
The Pakistani government, in a bold move of unmitigated retardation has played the appeasement card with the violently and aggressively encroaching Taliban fighters …
They, the Pakistani government gave up the NWF in an accord that allowed the Taliban to instate Sharia Law … against the will of the people there.
Pakistani Army: 550,000 fighters.
Taliban scrubs: 15,000 fighters.
Perception: not all Muslims are for extremism, many don’t want it or promote it.
Actuality: Even the so called moderates would rather allow extremism to ruin their country, the world, whatever, because they are spineless in the face of their own religious error; ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
Actually, you just made the Jihadist argument. That’s precisely their justification, arguing that their governments and especially the clergy are spineless and therefore must be destroyed.
I’m glad I left that door open …
The “reasoning” given by moderates is that even though those others are extremists, they are still “brothers in Islam”; so it is better to give them their way, than to take a stand against them.
Because of Allah’s will.
LMMFAOROTFLMMFAO … that’s a stunning two stroke error of ineffable stupidity. Hypocrisy to the highest, and the worst cop out ever, for being weak and fearful.
Another good post. I only wish Obama had the courage to go after the Bush Administration for violating the law. In addition to the fact that Obama plays nice and may only go after a few people below Rumsfeld, Obama has the problem that he has not cleaned house, stopped the practices that he claims to oppose, has gone back on his word on almost everything and in some instances is worse than Bush. But Eric Holder appears to have the potential to be the best AG of my lifetime.