We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Did Dick Durbin liken Gitmo to the Gulag? I came across a text of a speech by Democrat Senator Richard Durbin here which, at least from my reading, did not liken what is going on with suspected terrorists in U.S. captivity and the old Soviet gulag, on the other. The speech contains a lot that one might reasonably dispute but it is not rabid Michael Moore moonbattery, as far as I can tell. (Of course, his speech on his website may have been edited later on with the offending para taken out, but one should not assume that out of fairness to the senator).
So where did the reference to the “Dick Durbin slanders our boys” come from? Seriously, I’d like to know.
I posted similar thoughts over here.
It appears Durbin did make a reference to the gulag and the Nazis in the speech text I have now seen, so the guy clearly deserves some of the heat coming his way. But like I said, it doesn’t overall appear to be a rabidly silly speech.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
The worst I can say about Durbin’s speech is that some of his words might have been ill-chosen and inappropriate.
The way he’s been demonized by the right wing of the blogosphere says more about the right wing of the blogosphere than it does about what Dick Durbin actually said.
To the wingnut right, ‘them and us’ trumps ‘right and wrong’ and every time.
I don’t deny that some of the left are inclined to exaggerate what’s going on in Gitmo for partisan political ends. But that shouldn’t excuse the wingnut right
I believe the relevant portion is as follows, after Durbin described some various ways the terrorists were being treated: “If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.”
The relative innocuousness of the “treatment”, the true horror of the real Soviet gulags, the comparison between Americans and “Nazis, Soviets… (and) Pol Pot”, and the desire to equate terrorist POWs with hapless victims of dictators all provoked the disbelief and ire that has kept the controversy in the news.
Yes, but….
The firestorm directed at Durbin by the hard right has successfully diverted attention away from what’s going on in Gitmo, which may be insignificant compared with the crimes of genocidal dictatorships, but are still the sorts of things no civilised nation has any business doing.
Yes, but??? The facts are that nothing has happened at Gitmo that any nation has any business being even slightly concerned about, much less ashamed of. In fact, the terrorist pigs fighting against the US should all be shot in the field as armed irregulars, as clearly would be allowed by any of the Geneva conventions. Further, Durbin’s citation of an uncorroborated report by an unnamed FBI agent doesn’t come anywhere near the level of proof required to assert believably even these utterly unimpressive accusations. The one most closely mimicking totalitarian tactics is Durbin himself, using Goebbels’ “big lie” for political advantage.
Bearing in mind that this incident is part of an ongoing argument to redefine & downgrade what constitutes ‘torture’ in order to make politcal hay, what “sorts of things no civilised nation has any business doing” are you specifically referring to?
No one has argued that miltary personnel have been entirely blameless throughout, mind you. There has been egregious treatment & we are prosecuting offenders when they are found.
The questions involve matters of policy, not incidents.
Other than this, the main complaint is over the legal status of the prisoners, with one side [Dems] urging that they be regarded similar to criminals [thus given trials] and the other [Reps] claiming they’re combatants and thus to be held in similar fashion to POWs [& released on cessation of war, without trial].
Tim Hall,
What utter, unrealistic nonsense.
Are you such a wimp that the sound of loud music gives you the vapours? don’t the trendy pay good money for just such ‘music’ to be played loud and long? The upcoming Live 8 concert comees to mind! The fact that it is ‘rap’ or crap music is neither here nor there, – most people can’t understand it anyway.
Do you come over all peculiar if the temperature isn’t ‘just so? Try telling that to people who actually work in temperatures over 100f. on a regular basis e.g. cooks, bakers steel workers, roofers, etc. etc.
I can well imagine you going weak at the knees over a ‘pinged’ bra strap. No doubt you will say that it shouldn’t happen in a civilised society, well, – news for you – it does, and it is a civilised society. You can even see it on tv.
If you think the prisoners are really surprised, and are offended by the treatment they are receiving, then you are a bigger fool than I thought you were.
For goodness sake! they are in PRISON, and lucky to be there, after all they could have been shot – or even held until such time as they had their heads cut-off!
Wake up! – even by liberal standards your comment is pretty stupid…
Ernest, try to argue rather than shout at people. Ever heard of the Geneva Convention?
Durbin did make a passing reference to the Gulag, Nazis, etc, for which he has been rightly roasted, but that does not and should not detract from serious questions about the treatment of captives that he made.
Johnathan:
Al Quaeda, to my knowledge, is not a signatory to the Geneva Convention, therefor prisoners from among their ranks are not DUE the treatment mandated by said convention.
Richard, if that is so, how do you know if a man is a member of Al-Quaeda? Are you going to chuck any suspects in jail, toss away the key or shoot them dead, no questions asked? Are you saying that unless combatants wear uniforms with insignias, that anyone who might look dodgy is fair game for the bullet?
BTW, I am not against what Bush has set up at Gitmo, nor do I take the side of the Durbins and others who want to fight terrorists as if it were a game of cricket. But torture of suspects is off limits in a civilised nation. What is the point of defeating terror if we get down to their level?
I sympathize with the rebuttals to “Tim Hall”, but anyone who manages to squeeze four instances of “right wing” or “wingnut right” into three sentences is perseverating, not making an argument. Where’s your sympathy, lads?
You should bear in mind that Durbin’s web site quotes his remarks as recorded in the Congressional Record, the “official” report of the proceedings of the House and Senate.
The “rules” allow a member to go back later and “revise and extend” their remarks as recorded in the Congressional Record. The record is not annotated, it is replaced. In other words, the member can exercise the Great Electric Memory Hole Feature in order to make what they “actually said” on the floor of the Senate become “what they want to be recorded as saying” — non-history, they never happened. The session was however being carried live on CSPAN2 and the transcript of the TV broadcast is different than the Congressional Record.
It is also interesting to be aware that the matter under debate was an item called “Sustainable Energy Act.” Senator Durbin used the opportunity during the debate on an energy bill to drop his stinkbomb on the floor.
What’s good policy to win the war on terror (which ultimately requires winning hearts and minds, not just killing bad guys), and what just gives temporary catharsis to atavistic bullies like a few earlier commenters are two quite different things.
As for the applicablility of the Geneva Convention in this conflict, the way Germany and Russia treated each other’s POWs in World War II is a wonderful historical precedent. Not.
Since this site is quite clearly “enemy territory” and my mere presence could be classified as trolling, I’m not going to say any more on the subject.
Still better than Stalin is good enough for you?
JP,
Weren’t the prisoners in Guatanamo, all 500 of them, caught ‘in the act’, as it were, on the field of battle in Afghanistan?
Tim,
You are obviously a person of sensitivity, and patently, lead a sheltered life, but to describe what goes on in Guantanamo as ‘torture’ is really quite ridiculous.
Go to any town centre at the weekend, in that haven of civility called the United Kingdom, or for that matter New York, Los Angeles, Detroit or wherever, and you will see, if not actully be subjected to far worse than anything in that camp.
These people are POW’s and they look quite fit and healthy to me, unlike returning prisoners from Germany, Japan, Korea and VietNam, who were positively skeletal in appearance. We treat them far better than any other nation would treat its prisoners, and to call the treatment they receive ‘uncivilised’ is pure pedantry.
I suggest that your motive for being so ‘offended’ by what you are told goes on there, is purely political. That you have no sense of embarrassment for your cupidity is truly amazing..
Richard, if that is so, how do you know if a man is a member of Al-Quaeda?
Well, the Gitmo detainees all been through military tribunals (although how they fit that in between meals and prayers, I’m not sure), and a number have been released as a result, so there is some basis for believing the ones still at Gitmo are there for a reason.
Whatever one thinks of Durbin’s comments with respect to support for US troops, he has most certainly and unarguably trivialized the evil actions of both Nazis and Stalinists. I did bother to read the details of what was charged against US troops in Gitmo. All of these years I’ve been totally unaware that I regular sat through school classes in conditions that were the equivalent of Dachau or some Siberian camp with only a number. Perhaps we Americans were of much hardier stock that those effeminate Continentals, but I can’t recall a single student dropping dead from the 110 degree heat we sometimes had during Latin, or being found frozen solid from the air conditioning while visiting the administration building. I’m still waiting for the war crimes trial of our Vice Principal, or the Amnesty International report summarizing our brutalization.
Tim Hall, you are certainly not a troll and don’t let some of the ruder commenters here make you feel like one.
I want al-Quaeda and the Baathist dead-enders in the ME defeated and humiliated. I want democracy in that part of the world to take root and if the Durbins of this world really are damaging that effort unjustifiably, then shame on them. But let’s not make out that every senator who raises concerns about civil liberties and treatment of terror suspects is some sort of subversive loon.
“But let’s not make out that every senator who raises concerns about civil liberties and treatment of terror suspects is some sort of subversive loon.”
While true, one of the best ways of identifying subversive loons, on the Internet at least, is Godwin’s Law, where invoking Nazism to describe your opponent counts as an automatic disqualification, regardless of how well the argument was going for you. The seriousness of the discussion was undercut by his casual insult.
If that seems silly, it’s because his insult was silly. It’s like publicly accusing someone of cannibalism, then later claiming it was only to provoke a discussion about low-carb dieting.
Perhaps there should be a site warning for the more sensitive – something along the lines of –
“Inane cliches not welcome here!”, or maybe –
” Unattended or unsubstantiated, liberal chronological inexactitudes will destroyed on sight!”, or –
“Act like a clown, and we will treat you like a clown!”.
That should just about cover most of what passes for ‘liberal’ debate.
As for being rude, me – never, passionately forthright maybe, but rude – never! 🙂
JP,
We are not discussing civil liberties, or terror suspects. We are talking prisoners of war, they were caught ‘in the act’.
Durbin was not raising a point, ‘for the humanity of it’, he was piling on the agony for political gain!
‘Party before country’, delivered from a ‘holier than thou’ standpoint – so typically socialist! so typically corrupt!
I was one of the US rightwing bloggers giving him guff over his remarks. He’s apologized. Fair enough, I won’t continue to hold it against him.
But, if it becomes a trend to ramp up the Senate’s rhetoric in result of his example, I’ll reconsider.
Why not? A false apology – too little – too late, and the damage his remarks did cannot be erased by a half-arsed theatrical apology!
Bit like a judge saying ‘the jury will disregard the defence’s last remark’, he should do the right thing and resign, it is the only action that a real parliamentarian would, or could, take, but then he is only a democrat.
Some points to Ernest:
A Republican most likely wouldn’t resign either. Democrats have no special hold on dishonor and Republicans have no special honor. Both are pretty comparable, I would say. It takes a lot to get any politican to resign. In my state, we had our Republican governor go through a lengthy Clinton-like series of denials about his monetary abuses before finally resigning in the face of a threat of impreachment just like Nixon.
Regarding the prisoners, it wasn’t just temperate and noise (and the noise was in part for sleep deprivation no doubt). They were shackled into uncomfortable positions and not allowed to eat, drink, or go to the bathroom (thus the defecating/urinating on themselves). Reports of beatings, too. Honestly, nothing I’ve heard there surprises me–it’s pretty normal treatment for prisons with the levels of secrey ours have had (as shown in many psychological studies).
Most people seem to consider that kind of combination of abuse undesirable treatment of even prisoners of war (or “illegal combatants” or whatever our government’s calling them), and there’s the definite point that it changes the perceived standards so that mistreatment of any of our soldiers the enemy might capture appears more acceptable. But, while it’s the same as some, I repeat some but not hardly all, techniques the Nazis and others used, it’s not as bad in overall extent.
I worked in a military prison before, and given the conditions Gitmo has and the one I worked at, I’m pretty sure the detainees would opt for Gitmo in a heartbeat. I was astounded at the standard of food, and they have aircon?!? It sounds like a holiday camp!
Beatings are meted out only when necessary. Hey, in the past we would just toss two slavering guard dogs into the same cell as a recalcitrant inmate, shut the door, and smoke cigs for the next hour before taking the fellow to the hospital. I’m quite sure Gitmo doesn’t have that standard of… uh… violence.
If Amnesty et al want to complain about Gitmo, they should also complain about the vast number of prisons around the world with the same, or very likely, worse standards of treatment. The only reason why they’re specifically picking on Gitmo and comparing it to gulags and such is because it’s American. Tells you how compassionate they are, eh?
TWG
Think of the rightwing response as cheerleading.
The tactic has been repeated so many times that it’s possible to miss.
1. Find something offensive to the hard rightwing. The more obscure the better, a professor no one’s heard of, a sentence fragment in the introduction to a report, a sentence by a low profile senator.
2. Scream bloody murder to goose the political base and keep them in a state of agitated righteous indignation.
3. Repeat as necessary.
The only interesting question is why people (both left and rightwing) keep falling for it.
How about the number two Senator in the minority party? Personally, I accept his apology. And I’m not questioning the authenticity of his tears — yes, he was choked up while he addressed his remarks. And I give credit to the Mayor of the Windy City for the public rebuke that seems to have led to the apology.
Now, let’s move on. I’ve ordered my Gitmo Cookbook. Have you ordered yours?
I’m sure Sean Baker would appreciate a copy.
cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/02/60II/main652953.shtml
He had to apologise because the bloggers and Fox laid into him. That little toad deserved what he got and his apology is a wee bit limp.
BTW Tim Hall thinks they guys in GITMO are suffering…yeah right. I bet those prisoners eat better than many people who read this blog. Any of you anti-Gitmo types got a good idea on what do with the people in Gitmo right now? Or you just want to release them so they can do it all again (as several people from Gitmo already have). I hear alot of whinging about Gitmo and no solutions.
BTW the US is not a signatory to the Genena Convention. Al Queda is so well known for its great treatment of hostages and its prisoners.
What Durbin said was carefully calculated to make the impression that what the U.S. did at Gitmo effectively made us the moral equivalent of mass-murderers. This was not an off-the-cuff mention of Nazis, here. The intent was to convince the public that the U.S. was not merely wrong, but evil.
This was not a case of disconnected pieces of political rhetoric that, by some odd coincidence, made a perfect sound bite for the “Right-wing message machine”. This was a case of carefully chosen words intended to piggyback on Amnesty’s (now admitted) rhetorical excesses in furtherance of a fund drive. Durbin and his fellow Democrats are simply preparing the field for their presumed victory in Congress in 2006 so that they can take their little sham trial from last week and do it for real on Capitol Hill.
Yes, it is. There are in fact several conventions, and the US has refused to sign one of them (dealing with civil war and colonial police type actions), but it has accepted the others.
Someone above pointed out that Al Qaeda isn’t a signatory, as if that justifies anything. It is utterly irrelevant what your enemy’s position is, YOU have an obligation to observe the conventions you have signed. Failure of your enemy to accept the convention in absolutely no sense whatever excuses any lapse on your part.
On a more general point, it is IMO unreasonable to detain people without charge or without allowing them to see the evidence against them. It is especially unreasonable to do this at the same time as saying that you are doing it in the interests of peace, liberty and democracy. THAT is the objection to Guantanamo Bay (and indeed to HMP Belmarsh).
EG
The only happy part of this is that it is further evidence of how little chance there is of the democrats taking the house or senate in 2008!
I cannot see anyone’s interest in so egregiously abusing language, nor in defending such abuse.
Not to mention the incredible offense to the victims of real gulags – can you imagine that you had survived that and someone came along and compared it to this???
1) Worse crap than Gitmo happens under the noses of wardens at regular civilian prisons all over the civilized world. The interrogators at Gitmo need info from these guys, and they aren’t going to get it using Dick Durbin’s Interrogation Kit. Ultimately, it’s not about protecting the rights of detainees, it’s about losing the War on Terror so Chimpy McHaliburtonsteinBushHitlerPolPotStalin looks bad.
2) Yes, if you read the entire speech, Durbin quickly moderates his initial declarations, sounding downright moderate in the end. Like the old saying goes, a lie is most convincingly hidden between two truths, and politicians in cilivized countries have mastered blending lies into sweet-sounding speeches. I, for one, am not going to condemn people for pulling these lies out of speeches and holding them up to the light for the world to see, unless it really wasn’t in the speech in the first place.
On a more general point, it is IMO unreasonable to detain people without charge or without allowing them to see the evidence against them
Generally, it is. POWs are not required to be charged, nor shown evidence. A POWs status is simply that of an enemy soldier kept out of the conflict until hostilities end. Very reasonable, since the alternative is to shoot them.
All of these comparisons are a joke. The negative ‘appearance’ of Gitmo is an issue for Europeans & Americans, not Iraqis & Al-Quaeda. Tell me: Are the prisoners being worked? Starved?
You want torture? I sat on a concrete floor the other day & I think I’m getting a hemorrhoid. I worked 2 jobs throughout college & ate poorly during that time, with little sleep. When I was a child, my mother sent me to bed without dinner. Call Amnesty International! My whole life is an endless stream of torture! O, the Humanity!
PoWs still have rights under the conventions to which the US is a signatory, and should not be treated in the way the US is by its own admission treating prisoners in Cuba.
It seems to me that the claims of PoW status are expedient, and also intermittent. They’re PoWs when the US wants to avoid the due process of civil law. They’re not PoWs when the US wants to evade its obligations under the conventions it signed. It’s just plain bloody self-serving hypocrisy.
If they are PoWs, treat them as such consistently and observe the requirements of the conventions. If they are not PoWs, produce the evidence and put them on trial or let them go.
EG
So just what requirements of the Convention have been broken? They are fed well, they have shelter, their ‘religious’ requirements are attended to, they have regular access to ablutions. Occasionally they are interrogated, – which is allowed under the convention.
So where is the deficiency? I think you are deliberately putting your interpretation on the Convention, either to play the Devil’s Advocate, or, as is more than likely, to make a political point of some sort, and to demonstrate just what a reasonable and ‘progressive’ sort of chap you are. Have you ever read a copy of the conventions, or even seen a copy? – other than on Google.
Neesha,
Most people seem to consider that kind of combination of abuse undesirable treatment of even prisoners of war
Just who are ‘most people’? the only people wringing their hands seem to be liberals trying to bash the USA to make political points. You have conducted a poll, haven’t you, to justify your sweeping, – but erroneous statement.
so that mistreatment of any of our soldiers the enemy might capture appears more acceptable.
Just what prisoners are you talking about. I haven’t read of any coalition soldiers being taken prisoner in this, or the Afghan conflict. I have read of kidnappings etc. – but then they are returned promptly are they not? – minus heads!
Has anyone heard of the insurgents or opposing combatants actually taking any prisoners, and if so – any news of how they are being treated?
Yes. I know what I’m talking about, ernest.
Have you read them? The bits about the prohibition of torture, prohibition of humiliating or degrading treatment, requirements for proper legal process when necessary, etc?
EG
To me war, if is necessary, is not bounded by conventions. The combatants should have been killed in the field and never been sent to Gitmo. I believe that they were sent there to ‘extract information’ hence the tactics used. At best, get whatever information you can in the field, and then dispatch them. Hoping to gain something of value by isolating people indefinitely does not seem libertarian to me.
If that formula seems too drastic, then perhaps the activity of dropping bombs, killing people, and destroying property is likely the wrong answer. War to me is not a public relations exercise with people arguing about conventions and who spit in whose hair when, and so and so did worse.
War should be a clear and present danger handled with whatever means are necessary to end that danger. If the cost in moral high ground is too high, then some other means is operantly necessary.
EG,
There is nothing that requires ‘legal process’, while still at war. Even the framers of the conventions, were not that stupid.
As far as torture and humiliation go, it really is all in the interpretation, a session on the rack would be torture, standing naked for a length of time is not, it may be uncomfortable, but it isn’t torture. As for humiliation, the concept would seem to have more to do with religion and culture than anything else.
YOU have an obligation to observe the conventions you have signed.
Quite so, and the Geneva Conventions only provide protections to soldiers of signatory nations. AQ is not a signatory nations, and its fighters do not meet the requirements set forth for soldiers entitled to protection. Thus, the US has no obligation under the Conventions to treat AQ fighters as if they were protected by the Convention.
Whether we should anyway is a different question, but lets not pretend that refusing to do so is a violation of the Conventions.
Presumably if nasty Commies do it then it is bad, evil and a gross violation of human rights, but if America does it then it is a legitimate interrogation technique.
Like I said, hypocrisy.
This is where it gets tricky for the US, I think. If they are considered PoWs, then they should be treated according to the convention. Their treatment in Cuba would appear to have breached the requirements of the conventions.
However, if they don’t meet the criteria in the conventions for treatment as PoWs (as the US argues) then they cannot be classed as PoWs at all. In that case, the US should be charging and trying them, or alternatively releasing them without charge.
In what way, exactly, is it permissible for the US to detain indefinitely without trial or without access to the evidence against them people who by its own admission are not prisoners of war? In what way is this not just arbitrary detention of people the state does not like? Why is it acceptable for America to do this, but not acceptable for, say, China to do it? And in what way is arbitrary detention without trial supportive of the spread of liberty, justice, the rule of law, peace & democracy?
EG
In what way, exactly, is it permissible for the US to detain indefinitely without trial or without access to the evidence against them people who by its own admission are not prisoners of war?
Well, I’m sure I don’t know. But didn’t some IRA members make the same sort of claim against the UK in the past? What was your rationale?
EG,
Presumably if nasty Commies do it then it is bad, evil and a gross violation of human rights, but if America does it then it is a legitimate interrogation technique.
You really have a most devious sense of logic, if the commies restrained themselves to only the practices used at Guantanomo, then you may just have a point.
However, tales of ‘commie’ treatment of POW’s or whatever you care to call them, are far worse and more extreme than anything used at Guantanamo, that is why they are in violation of ‘human rights’, and their treatment considered ‘bad’. No hypocrisy here! only in your biased inferences, you really should learn to compare like with like, before making spurious accusations.
That it is wrong. It was wrong in Ireland too.
Let me rephrase it for ernest, who obviously doesn’t get it – IT IS WRONG. It doesn’t matter WHO does it, it is wrong.
EG
EG,
I get it very well, and enough of your feeble patronising, – thank you!
It is only wrong in your opinion! I know how much you relish rationalising everything under the sun, but in the case of warfare, some things just cannot be rationalised in the normal fashion.
These people would quite happily kill you and yours, without even thinking twice about it, indeed it is their religion to do just that, – and you want to rationalise on the ethics of how they are treated! – just how pathetic can you get?
Wasn’t it Roosevelt who said; “Talk softly, but carry a big stick”. and have you never heard “All’s fair in love and war”.
I am sure that what needs to be done is being done, – no more and no less. I am equally sure that no-one relishes dishing out any unmerited harsh treatment, to friend or foe.
If your sole purpose and argument, (as was Durbin’s), is to portray the US soldiers in Guantanamo as a bunch of sadists, then you are doing a good job, that it bears little relationship to reality seems to matter little to you.
Euan, in re NI, in the 70s or 80s, did any member of Parliament ever claim that the Maze could easily be mistaken for a Nazi POW camp, or a gulag, or one of Pol Pot’s torture rooms? Honestly, I don’t know–maybe some MP did. Maybe many did. But if you heard such a statement, wouldn’t you think that maybe it was not a rational or a constructive claim?
The point I’m trying make is that there’s plenty to discuss about dealing with terrorism–weighing self-protection against violating principles important to us or acknowledging the emotions that make rough justice attractive or acknowledging how difficult it is for soldiers or police to deal with hostile prisoners. But instead what we often hear is dimwitted, spurious rhetoric that seems clearly calculated to make political hay. It doesn’t surprise me that people react with anger or dismissal.
These people would quite happily kill you and yours
No evidence has been presented for that, unless you count the sayso of the Pentagon and/or its warlord allies. I’m sure that some people would quite happily kill me and mine (including aforesaid Pentagon and warlord allies), if they held me a sufficient threat to their view of the world, but these people?
And if they would, could they? If you want to destroy the open society in the cause of protecting yourself against empty or virtual threats, at least the Health and Safety inspectorate don’t commission legal opinions to define away torture.
Well, forgive me if I think arbitrary detention and denial of due process is wrong. Ever hear of the rule of law? It’s what is supposedly being defended. I’d think it would be a good idea to actually practice it if you seek to defend it.
Yes, I have heard it. It’s crap, and it’s a pat phrase used to justify anything you want.
This is not a war, at least not outside the self-serving imaginings of an administration seeking only to justify its own arbitrary action – and that applies to the UK as well as to the US.
You just don’t get it, do you? My complaint is not about the way soldiers behave, nor about the need to do something about militant Islam, it is about the self-serving mendacious hypocrisy used to justify the exercise of arbitrary power.
Samizdatists usually lose no time in condemning the excesses of the state and its exercise of arbitrary power in such things as eminent domain, for example. How the hell can the state be wrong to exercise arbitrary power in forcing the sale of property, but simultaneously be right in exercising arbitrary power by detaining people without trial or sight of any evidence against them? Is this not also hypocrisy?
I’d think the guy was using excessively hyperbolic rhetoric, but in defence of a valid point – namely that arbitrary detention is a Bad Thing.
Britain fought a bloody civil war over the arbitrary exercise of state power. America rebelled and won independence for the same cause. But now, because we are apparently the good guys, it’s all ok? If it is wrong, it is wrong always. The ends do not justify the means.
EG
AK-
Something similar, and recent.
Referring to a point made above, is it really the case that all of the folk held in Guantanamo were caught on the field of battle? If they were, and admitted to being soldiers in a war, then their status as PoWs would be clear, as would the conditions under which they should be protected. If not, that clearly presents a problem, but not an insuperable one.
To repeat an earlier point, having read Durbin’s (unedited) speech in full, it pretty clear the man has cheapened his office by likening Gitmo to the Gulag. His speech did, however, raise legitimate issues about the treatment of terror suspects and the threats to the rule of law and civil liberties.
Sometimes I may upset regular readers of this blog by playing “devils advocate” by trying to see a different point of view and get outside the usual right/left view of the world. Anyway, defending liberty often means keeping awkward company.
Mr Pearce,
Like an earlier commenter, I think Senator Durbin’s comments were opportunistic and carefully calculated to echo other comments–like the gulag comment made by AI, without him directly accusing the US military of taking any actions comparable to Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, or whatever flavor of the week the US military is compared to next (perhaps the Mongols. Bush’s supposed desire for a theocratic state should at least get us Ottoman comparisons). However, if this had occurred in a vacuum, i.e. no previous comparisons, I don’t think it would have had much impact despite the egregiously bad examples Senator Durbin offered. He certainly did not say that GITMO was an American run gulag. I don’t think it’s worth censure, it is overplayed, and hopefully this will end it. However, as an avowed Bush drone–for dear Mr Hall and Mr Farris–and ex-Marine just back from Iraq–my belief is that service members, their families, and some of the public’s patience is wearing extremely thin on being constantly compared to behavior from some of the deadliest regimes in history. I personally am getting quite tired of it, and believe a lot of anger aimed at Durbin is fueled by the overall media climate, not his remarks alone. I don’t know–except on blog comment sections–anyone who supports torture, and think you have extremely valid concerns. I just happen to think torture is not widespread or ordered at GITMO, isolated cases do occur and should be harshly punished, and that the serious issue facing the Bush Administraton with GITMO–which they screwed up–is indefinite imprisonment with no trial, or even formal charges for that matter. To be blunt, and again left/right, the Democrats seem more interested in inflating torture accounts, saying it is occuring everywhere (where rap music no doubt exists), torture must indeed go up and down the chain of command, and trying to prove Bush personally ordered torture, than helping fixing the procedures at GITMO.
Responding to Johnathon Pearce:
Whether someone is a POW under the Geneva Convention is spelled out by Convention III, Article 4.
Article 5 then states: “Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.”)
Once that “competent tribunal” has determined they do not fall under the Geneva conventions, they don’t get Geneva protections anymore. Each of the 520 prisoners at Gitmo has had such a tribunal determine that they _don’t_ qualify for such protections.
So whether they were captured on the battlefield is irrelevant.
In which case, then, they presumably DO qualify for the standard protections of the law? So why aren’t those protections being given?
EG
Yeah thanks to good ole’ Dick Al Jaz has got a lead story for the next few weeks. Nice to see a US Senator creating bad press for the US goverment and providing good PR for anti-Americans. His position as number 2 man in the Senate for the Dems should be untenable. Of course, the Republicans hope he stays.
Weren’t the prisoners in Guatanamo, all 500 of them, caught ‘in the act’, as it were, on the field of battle in Afghanistan?
Er…. no… I can’t say I’ve got exhaustive data on this but of the 6 released Brits, one was arrested in Pakistan having not been in Afganistan, and another was arrested in, I think, Zambia – after which he was shuffled around various countries before arriving in Cuba.
It stretches my credulity to believe these to be rare. Probably a minority but certainly not rare.
Steve Wood’s comments are a big cold dose of common sense and balance. Thanks.
Durban reads a fictious FBI agent’s report and then says we treat the prisoners at Gitmo as if they were in Stalin’s gulag. Really? I never knew Stalin or Hitler served their gulag guests lemon chicken nor tortured them by adjusting the air conditioning. Imagine the perfidity of the Americans providing people who in WWII were provided with summary execution the Koran. Evil, pure evil.
Durban deserves the respect he has sown. No doubt most of the deceased Illinois veterans will not vote for him next election.
So sad.
So it’s okay to lock people up indefinitely without trial, without charge and without letting them see any evidence against the, provided you give them nice food and an air conditioned cell?
I think you need to consider the priorities here. How would YOU like to be incarcerated like that, merely on the say of a state official? Would it be fair or reasonable, even with lemon chicken?
If not, why is it fair for the detainees?
EG
A couple of thoughts about this:
1. Durbin is a raving big-government socialist, not some “moderate” as claimed elsewhere. His voting record shows him to be a tax-happy, gun-banning statist, and every SINGLE piece of loathsome Nanny legislation offered up since his election has had his “YES” all over it.
2. In the captured Al-Qa’eda training manual, prisoners are exhorted always to make “torture” claims against the Great Satan while in captivity.
3. Gitmo is a military facility, and the FBI are not given access to the place as a matter of course. I’d be a little leary of any claims made by an FBI agent — “second-hand information” might be a factor here.
4. “Hundred-degree temperatures” in mid-summer in the Caribbean? Wow… who’d a thunk it? Perhaps they’d prefer to be incarcerated at the military stockade in Leavenworth, Kansas where summer temps seldom reach 90. Unfortunately, winter temps typically hover around freezing, and night-time sub-zero temps are common. There’s just no pleasing some murdering Islamist scumbags, is there?
There’s just no evidence that they ARE murdering Islamist scumbags, either. Or at least none the state appears prepared to subject to scrutiny. Which is, of course, the problem.
Well there IS evidence that some of the so-called innocent people released from Gitmo have headed straight back to Afganistan/Iraq and started attacking US troops/local forces. These people were captured in a war zone…
EG, in one of your previous comments you seem to deny that we (the US and the UK) are at war. Does it not make all of your other arguments about POWs and Geneva Conventions irrelevant, as these terms actually apply to real, not imaginary wars?
We are not at war in any meaningful sense of the term. This does not make my other comments irrelevant, because they are based on what others say – i.e. that we are at war. Or aren’t. Or are but only when it suits us to say so.
If we are at war, then the detainees may be considered PoW and thus entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions. Such protection is not being given.
If we are not at war, the detainees cannot be considered PoW and thus should be entitled to protection under the law. Such protection is not being given.
If we are at war, but the detainees are not considered PoW because they don’t meet the criteria, then again they should be entitled to the protection of the law. Which, of course, is not being given.
Basically, if the US or UK wish to detain people in the current circumstances, then they must either declare them to be PoW and observe the conventions, OR declare them not to be PoW and observe the law. The thing that pisses me off is that they are doing neither, and are creating a new category – people which may be detained indefinitely just because the state says so. The other thing that pisses me off is that Samizdatists – usually so keen to do down the nasty oppressive state and to oppose EXACTLY this sort of thing – don’t seem to see this as a problem.
It would be uncharitable to suggest that this may be because the detainees tend to have a skin pigmentation problem and subscribe to a different religion. I’m finding it hard to see any other explanation, though.
EG
EG, I am not interested in what others are saying, I am interested in what you actually think. You seem to think that our governments are playing at some imaginary war, and consequently those detainees are our enemies (i.e. people who want to kill us and ours) only in our governments’ imaginations. Although it is entirely possible to discuss the handling of detainees in theory, using an imaginary war as an example, such discussion will never wholly apply to a reality in a real war, and this is why it became difficult for me to take the rest of your comments seriously after reading that one. But, even for the sake of such a theoretical discussion: if these people are not POWs, exactly what are the laws that are supposed to protect them? They are neither US or UK citizens, so they cannot be prosecuted under the US or the UK laws. What exactly do you suggest we do with them? This is not a rhetorical question – I am truly seeking a realistic answer.
Now, I don’t know about Samizdatistas, but liberals (in the classical sense of the term) I know in the US think that the state’s major role (some think the only role) is protecting its citizens from external threats. Most of these people also don’t seem to think these current threats are imaginary, and this seems to include the Samizdatistas as well. So I don’t see where the problem is.
BTW, I don’t think skin pigmentaion has anything to do with this, but you have a point mentioning religion: in this (imaginary?) war our (imaginary?) enemies seem to want us dead because our religion is different from theirs, not the other way around.