Bill Clinton: 'Whacking' around terror suspects is OK but...

"Clinton basically said that the Bush administration should leave the Geneva Conventions alone since they provide important protections to U.S. troops in time of war." I've heard this argument before, and it's SO out of touch with reality. For example, can anyone name an opponent of the U.S., in any war since WWI, that adhered to the Geneva Convention on prisoners? Talk to the prisoners of the Japanese in the Bataan Death March of WWII. Talk to the prisoners in Korea or Viet Nam. And the terrorists we fight today are as likely as not to behead anyone they capture, let alone follow any Geneva rules.

Basically, Clinton, McCain et al are asking the U.S. to adhere to rules NOBODY else even tries to follow. This denial of reality is stunning

I'll wait for the usual suspects to blame Clinton for not starting overt wars on Al-Qaeda...I don't recall seeing these same people clogging urban streets protesting and demanding action during the 90s. Guess it's always easy to be a Monday morning quarterback

Bruce..What i hear you say is that we should sink to thier level...is that correct? Then what makes us better than them?

Hell, yeah Bill. I'm all for whacking them around, too. What the CIA, military intelligence and other US agents are saying is write down exactly what you can and can't do in these interrogations. That way they can't be prosecuted for trying to get information out of these terrorists after the fact. I agree with Clinton and McCain that you don't need to rewrite article III to do that. But some clarity would certainly help these guys do their jobs because until they write a policy down no interrogations will happen.

Tell us Bruce and the others,
How do you win hearts and minds when you become inhuman like the enemy? What good is torture when it doen't result in the truth? Recall the Canadian that was wrongly imprisoned and tortured, he confessed to training in Afghanistan...I'll repeat that, he confessed to training in Afghanistan. He did NOT and that is a fact.

Bruce -

If the concept what the Geneva Conventions were designed to do is too much for you, think of them as speed limits. Without a 55 mph limit on the Eisenhower, people would be going 150 mph. A speed limit of 55 keeps people down to around 75. Thus with the Geneva Conventions, our soldiers might be "whacked around" and tortured, but fewer are killed with these controls in place.

When all we do treat others the way they treat us, we become them. Torture is the tool of evil, cruel, uncivilzed nations. We have to continue to show the world that the US is above the practices of these nations, or we will continue to lose the moral credibility that the Bush administration has already begun to erode.

All I will say at the sign after this that one of our kids are tortured . Some of you who want it. Will be the first to scream why.Bush wants this act because he all ready has tortured. Thats it in a nut shell

"Basically, Clinton, McCain et al are asking the U.S. to adhere to rules NOBODY else even tries to follow. This denial of reality is stunning

Posted by: Bruce | Sep 21, 2006 9:34:37 AM"

Really? Nobody? Not say, Canada, UK, Australia. You know for a fact Brazil or New Zealand or the Philippines, Western Europe would not?

The 'protection' that is put forth involves not being charged as war criminals after the fact. It's called 'not totally abandoning' the moral high ground. You know, not sinking as low as 'them'.

Never forget, our president doesn't know what an 'outrage against human dignity' consists of. It obviously confused him during his speech just the other day. He went into eye shifting, stammering mode. A sure sign of some kind of guilt by association, I suppose.

Bruce - Do you want us to fight terrorists or become terrorists?

The Germans and Japanese treatment of POWs in WWII is a great example. They slaughtered or starved millions of Russian and American prisoners during the war. We fought them and defeated them, but we didn't sink to their level. We fed and clothed the prisoners we took. Then we helped both countries rebuild and turned them into allies.

We should not abandon our morals or our rules because others don't follow them. Do you really want to be more like them?

Dale Peters,

Hey Dale!
Check out 'Warnings for Iran and Syria' blog.
You mis-under-est-identified me with someone else re. vets.

To sum this all up is very easy.The Geneva Convention doesn't even apply to these people.They are not soldiers of any nation,they don't wear uniforms....their terrorists!The A.C.L.U, their slip and fall lawyers got involved and the libs on the Supreme Court agreed with them and voted 5-3 in favor of Handen.
I want the president to run this war on terrorism,not some liberal judges.
Paulo

Why bother whacking them around?

First thing in the morning, forge their confession, and their signature - because, after all, they probably can't write so you'd be making them look better.

Then put them on trial - no jury of course - should be in and out of the court in thirty minutes or so with a gulity verdict.

Bit of light lunch and then ........

Off With Their Heads.

Consider the day's work done by around three, and we even get to miss the traffic on the way home.

Off course, one or two innocent ones might get topped, but no-one from over there - wherever that is - is really innocent are they? And of course, democracy must be preserved, even if it to the utter detriment of human decency.

In fact, let's just go straight to Trial by Ordeal, and we'd save even more time. Three day weekend anyone?

OHCD,

Then a few very strong G&T's all around to knock off the hard edges.

Sounds like a plan!

(OHCD, the sardonic Brit strikes.)

Paulo, you are precious!

OHCD...nice to see you back. Lets not stop there.
Lets just take anyone of arab descent..we know they all support the terrorists.

Does torture get to the truth or satisfy your sadism? Please go over the case of the wrongly imprisoned Canadian. He confessed to training in a terror camp...he DID NOT.

Bill Clinton may have avoided the draft,just as George Dubya,Dick Cheney,Donald Rumsfeld,and Karl Rove,but at least he doesn't "pretend to be a "CHICKENHAWK" like the GOPers in the White House currently do.

This torture issue shows exactally how far from reality George W. Bush has been for his entire silverspoon life.

His Daddy helped him avoid Vietnam,so Dubya can now "pretend" to be a tough guy patriot.

Paulo,

I want YOU to run for President.

The satire biz is surpisingly slow at the moment.

PS Thanx for that CM and BillR - work has been getting in the way ....

"Does torture get to the truth or satisfy your sadism? Please go over the case of the wrongly imprisoned Canadian. He confessed to training in a terror camp...he DID NOT.

Posted by: jethro | Sep 21, 2006 11:44:34 AM"

Jethro,

Remember what the Decider said recently:

"We do not torture..."

HL Mencken said (I am not paraphrasing, Juanito.)

"When they say it's not about the money, it's about the money."

If we don't torture Bush would never have had to deny it in the first place.

When Nixon said "I am not a crook", it meant he was a crook.
When Clinton said "I never had sex with that woman." it meant he had sex with that woman.

We seem to have entered a world where the opposite of everything said is the truth.

We have arrived at the Animal Farm; what used to be a critique of socialism now fits current conservatism. Re-read it as an adult to see what I mean.

Many of us can see the country spiraling down into some form of hard right authoritarianism. Something like Franco's Spain, or Pinnochet's Chili, or Park's S. Korea, all our 'friends' back then, by the way.

Maybe nothing has changed, after all.

I have no doubt that if Canada or Belgium attacked the U.S., that Canada or Belgium would adhere to the POW provisions of the Geneva Conventions.

Does anyone in their right mind think that war with Belgium is even a remote possibility?

If the U.S. is attacked in the future, it will be attacked by dictatorships, terrorist-sponsoring states, and/or terrorists. In other words, by countries and organizations that reject any form of "civilized" war, including the Geneva Conventions. That is reality.

Another reality: according to the Geneva conventions themselves, the Geneva Convention POW protections can only be invoked by uniformed enemy armies. Which the terrorists are not. To extend the Geneva Conventions to these terrorists is itself a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

And anyone who finds some equivalence between our treatment of terrorist prisoners, and an enemy who televises beheadings of prisoners, is again denying reality.

Bruce,
Will you or any of the other sadists please tell us how we win w/ torture? It only results in false confessions. Your argument that because the enemy is inhuman we must become inhuman is offensive and wrong. We have higher standards. If you do not you are scum.

Hey C your Right Big Time I am Sorry

We aren't denying reality Bruce. The terrorists are completely without morals in our eyes and have shown they will brutally torture and kill their prisoners. We just don't think that our government should follow their example in any form. Whether or not the captives wear uniforms.

Dale P.

No apology necessary.

Just didn't want to lose the respect of someone I respect.

Sorry, Leftists, but coercive interrogsations have proven over and over again to WORK!! And do not mix up blaring Red Hot Chili Peppers and putting someone in a cool room for a long time with torture. We have not chopped anyone's head off. We have not beaten anyone to a pulp and then dismembered them. We have not done any waterboarding. These terrorists DO NOT fall under Geneva protections.

Actually, though, I think the Left doesn't want the U.S. to have any ability to stop terrorist attacks or to arrest and/or kill more terrorists because they want successful terrorist attacks so they can lambast the Bush administration some more. That is the way it is, in a nut shell.

Ahhh..the voice of reason. Thank you JohnD!

JohnD, if these terrorists DO NOT fall under Geneva Conventin, then why is GBW trying to re-interpret them? I mean, we, as a country, either follow a code of ethics/honor or we don't, isn't that the way it is, in a nut shell?

But then, having suffered through your posts, I should realize you would have no idea what that means.

And don't give me any of that crap about the ability to stop terroist attacks. The big attack stopped by the Brits? You think they cracked that thru torture? Proven to work my foot. When McCain was "interrogated", he told his captors that his commanding officer was Clark Kent and they went away happily. Think about that.

Waterboarding. It's fast, its effective and no-one is harmed. They have the crap scared out of them (literally sometimes), but no physical harm is done.

You got one word right John D.

The penultimate one.

Waterboarding is a known method. This administration just doesn't admit doing it because they do not want to give terrorist our playbook. For those who do NOT think the Geneva Conventions apply please reread the Hamden decision by the United States Supreme Court.

Yeah, that's right John. All torture opponents want Americans to die in terrorist attacks just to make George Bush look bad. And you and your neocon buddies really should stop smoking crack with Rush Limbaugh.

George doesn't need anybody's help looking bad. All he has to do is stand at a microphone and promote legalization of prisoner abuse. He looks clueless, incompetent, and lacks moral character.

As far as never having abused prisoners, I guess you missed the all the news about that place called Abu Ghraib. There were pictures. True, nobody was dimembered so far as we know. Just stripped, beaten, hooded, collared like dogs, bitten by dogs, and generally abused. I'll bet we won loads of hearts and minds in Iraq when that came out. As far as I'm concerned, the only people who will benefit from government approved prisoner abuse are the terrorist recruiters.

John D,
Leftists like Colin Powell, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and John Warner don't want the U.S. to have any ability to stop terrorist attacks or to arrest and/or kill more terrorists because they want successful terrorist attacks?

Just a Point for Information: My father served in Europe in WWII and was a "guest" of the German Luftwaffe for about 15 months. While he regarded prison camp as dull and dreary, he told me that he and his comrades were treated reasonably well. Russian prisoners, however, were frequently treated more harshly. They were not allowed to socialize with American or other European prisoners, and were punished severely for minor infractions.

Terry, you're right. Water boarding causes no permanent injury. Also, you can beat the palms of one's foot with a rubber hose. It will cause bruising, but if done "properly" will not cause permanent damage. So, let's add beating palms of feet with rubber hoses as "aggressive questioning." OK?

John E......Rummy,is not a chickenhawk,he did serve in the Navy and later went on to be a flight instructor....besides serving numerous presidents.GET your facts straight before you go on your "trip" to Iraq.
Oh,thank-you for your .....service? Would not want to be fighting next to you,in Iraq or in your mental institution.
Paulo

Actually, though, I think the Left doesn't want the U.S. to have any ability to stop terrorist attacks or to arrest and/or kill more terrorists because they want successful terrorist attacks so they can lambast the Bush administration some more. That is the way it is, in a nut shell.
Posted by: John D | Sep 21, 2006 1:52:30 PM

John D,
This is without a doubt the most ridiculous comment you have ever written.

Bad news, Janet. McCain, Graham, and Warner reached a compromise on an interrogation bill with the White House today. They'll all support the new bill in time to pass it before election day. Do nothing congress, you say?

I am so completely tired of the whole 'leftists are soft on terrorism' canard. I am a leftist. I am against terrorism. I am perfectly fine with locking up terrorists and throwing away the key. I am not fine with disappearing and torturing 14,000 random brown guys and calling that winning the war on terror. That, in my opinion is what makes the US (currently) a terrorist state, and I pray we can regain our sanity and toss everyone in the current administration in jail someday.

Tom O,

You're knocking them out of the park!

I'll chime in as a former Interrogator in the Army.

Coercive methods, more often than not, do not work in obtaining useful intelligence from a subject. Bear in mind, also, that the majority of prisoners do not possess any useful information at all.

Anybody with experience knows this, but in the current atmosphere with demands for instant results, along with poorly trained personnel, the pressure to use discredited methods is pervasive.

A Marine Officer in WWII, Sherwood Moran, got results in his interrogation of Japanese EPWs (an intransigent foe if there ever was one)by using a counterintuitive method: He was nice to them.

Major Moran also had lived in Japan prior to the war and was fluent in their language and was very familiar with their culture. He also realized that most of the prisoners wouldn't be able to give him earth shaking strategic information, but that isn't the role of the Interrogator, anyway. Our mission is to collect and collate information to assist in building an overall mosaic of the enemy's overall disposition.

Interrogation is just one tool to do that, one thread in building that mosaic. And coercive methods do more damage than good.

Si-igh...

I can't believe I'm reading a debate about the morality of torture.

OK, to the cold fish who can't understand the moral wrong, try to wrap your heads around the PRACTICAL problems with torture:

1) It results in faulty intelligence. The torturee blurts out anything in order to stop the pain. (Sorry JD, it might work in movies, but in the real world it just doesn't).

2) We're inviting the enemy to abuse our soldiers they may capture. They're not very nice people to begin with, so its really, REALLY bad idea to challenge them to be even nastier.

3) We really, REALLY don't need to have the civilized world even more disgusted and angry with us. We could use a few friends right now.

It occurs to me that I may have referred to "JD" when I was acutally addressing "John D", with my remark about torture only working in the movies. My apologies to JD.

By the way, John D, I seem to remember you and I having an extended argument about whether America is a Christian or Secular nation.

Tell me: What would Jesus say about torture?

The dog & pony show of Dubya & Company on torture would be hiarious if it weren't for the implications.

"My administration follows the law on torture and it's already stopped attacks so we need to change the law to make what we've already done legal. And no we're going to answer whether waterboarding is torture so we can do it after the law is changed."

What a hoot!

I say we hook John D's happy sack up to a twelve volt battery and see if we can get him to pledge allegiance to Michael Moore. I bet we can.

Jerry For President!

Bruce-

Just because the Geneva Convention does not specifically apply to the terrorists, as they aren't uniformed soldiers, dose not mean that we shouldn't use the guidelines set out therein to treat people as people. Your argument that they don't do it, so why should we, absolutely disgusts me. The fact that they lack any moral integrity does not mean that we should strip ours away by torturing innocents to obtain false confessions. The countries that we tend to criticize for their human rights violations are the ones that torture. For us to start (or, well, continue...) is entirely inexcusable.

Thank you Jerry for putting weight behind what myself and others have been saying. Yes there was a compromise but it seems like the Geneva Conventions will remain intact and defendents will be able to view evidence used against them.

For Bill,
McCain et al did not compromise w/ the Administration, it was the other way around. They were the voices of moderation, reason, and conscience.

Brian,

Could't agree more, right up to the old bean bag - but instead of the battery I vote for a hand crank generator.

Hey folks, I never said I supported torture. Coercive interrogation, yes. Torture? No. And while Jerry says often times it does not work, I also have seen interviews with military interrogators who say it does work. Apparently it coercive interrogation was done to the 9/11 masterminder and it did net good information.

And Juanito, perhaps Jesus would not support any type of interrogation whatsoever. But Jesus is/was special. Man, however, is not. And while I would propose following Jesus's teachings to the ultimate, with Islamic terrorists we are not dealing with people who would ever consider following Jesus in any way. With them, we are dealing with the ultimate evil.

And, Cheryl, for you to consider the U.S. a terrorist state? Tell that to the millions of people this nation has freed in past 5 years, the millions we helped after the tsunami, the hundreds of thousands we helped after the Pakistani earthquake, the billions we've given to Africa, and the fact that the U.S. is largely the only nation trying to get the world to do something about Darfur.

Your hatred toward America is one reason why the Left will never play much of a role in the U.S. politically.

"You got one word right John D.

The penultimate one.

Posted by: OHCD | Sep 21, 2006 3:37:52 PM"

You're funny, dude. Freakin' high-larious. I had to go to the dictionary for this one.

Jerry,

To fully understand your post, I need you to clarify:

Are you saying that it's OK for the U.S. to keep suspected terrorists locked up for as long as necessary to build this "mosaic" of the enemy's disposition? If so, how should we treat them? (To answer this, you need to define "nice.") For example, in your mind, should they receive the same rights as an American citizen accused of a crime?

"Bruce..What i hear you say is that we should sink to thier level...is that correct? Then what makes us better than them?"

That would be like a Police officer saying

"I would try to catch a speeder, but then I would have to speed to catch them....and what would that show if I were to sink to thier level?"

Thanks Doug, but it's a really short fence.

JD,

The wisdom of 'hot pursuit' of speeders and criminals has been called into question. Lot's of innocent people have died.

So, inadvertently, your own analogy backs the other guys argument.
More harm done than result justifies.

JD,
We are talking about a matter of conscience and morality. Your example shows how juvenile and idiotic you seem to be. Tell us how false confessions and sadism help win this war? How do we win if we become inhuman like our enemy?

Looks like the McCain-Bush deal wasn't so much a win or a compromise as a sell-out. McCain wins a shot at the nomination in return for his soul. Maybe Hugo Chavez isn't so far off...

Whether you call it torture, "coercive interrogation", or a stimulating rubber-hose massage makes no difference to me. I'm not playing stupid Republican word games.

Tom O,

You are correct. Morphine for the masses. Nothing more.

McCain is in danger of becoming Colin-ized; So compromised by his actions to appease Bush that he loses all credibility with everyone else. He appears to be afraid of 'the Base'.

JB-

As far as I can tell, those prisoners will be held for the forseeable future, regardless of their involvement in any activities directed against the US. At this point, I think it's fair to say that any useful information from reliable sources has already been obtained. Relevant information is perishable, and Al Quaeda has evolved and morphed into an organization that would probably no longer be recognizable to any of them.

At some point in the future, a large number of detainees will be repatriated to their countries. Until that time, they should be afforded the benefit of those rights that are applicable under the Geneva Convention. I never drew a distinction between what defined an EPW, a detainee, or what the administration calls "unlawful combatants". Once somebody has been captured, regardless of their status, they are in our care and custody. They need to be treated humanely, at the very least.

There are, of course, some hard core terrorists being detained. Whether they are being held at Gitmo or some other facility OCONUS, it is more than likely that these individuals will never see the light of day again in their lives, with or without a trial.

That's just the way it is, and I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. Politicizing the situation won't do any good, either. There's enough blame to go around stretching back almost 30 years, to include administrations from both parties.

Those like Bruce that claim that critics of the President are out of touch with reality should try taking a dose of it once and a while.

Here's my question Bruce... one of these days, if you are lucky enough to be captured by a foreign power and they start torturing you to get information... when you are waterboarded... and between gasps you scream that torture is forbidden by the Geneva Conventions... how will you respond to their claims that they are not really torturing you because their President says it isn't?

You really shouldn't invoke reality bruce when you haven't experienced any of it beyong your TV set.