So, will the Left take the word of a...

[The Ressurrected One]

...military clergy over that of the detainee-informed International Red Cross, Amnesty International, and Turban Durban?

I doubt it, but here goes:


FROM: Reverend Kent L. Svendsen (http://www.ucmpage.org/news/um_gitmo.html), Ordained Elder, United Methodist Church / Northern Illinois Conference

Dear Women's Division,
General Board of Global Ministries
United Methodist Church

I understand that you are about to start a campaign relating to, among other things, human rights protections and the detainees held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

I can speak with some authority on the subject since I served as the chaplain to the Joint Detention Operation Group in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from May 2004 until March 2005. As a United Methodist I have a keen sense of world justice and while serving in Cuba sought to be faithful to our social principles and their concern for social holiness. So I am not speaking to you as a military chaplain but as an Ordained United Methodist.

I have a great concern for our news media sources today. There was a day when the truth and protecting our nation from harm took precedence over being the first to break a story. Now it seems that accusations, no matter how harmful, no matter the source, no matter the possible consequences, are enough to use them as weapons upon the innocent as well as the guilty.

I am also grieved that there seems to be not only an automatic assumption of guilt when the accusations are aimed at our military and our government, but that any explanation aimed at proving them innocent is also automatically viewed as a "cover up". And that when those who are guilty of violations are uncovered, prosecuted, and punished there is a tendency by some to want to use that as evidence that the violations were policy instead a violation of the standing orders and policy. What the news media and groups like the Women's Division need to understand is that accusations cause harm and create damage that a retraction and an admission of error later cannot repair. (I don't think we will ever really know exactly how many died after Newsweek made the false accusation of a Koran being flushed down a toilet.)

There are those who would use accusations such as those recently made against our military as weapons to gain political power. They count on the fact that people will believe something if its said enough times and said by people and organizations they respect. It was the case in the past that our nation's opponents tried to prevent our culture and news sources from reaching their people. After all, the ideas of freedom, democracy, and equality for all doesn't play well in some parts of the world. So since modern technology cannot be stopped and "world news" is now also news to the world there is now a new strategy. They use it to their advantage as a weapon against our nation.

The accusations are flying fast and furious. If your organization would be interested in knowing about my experience. (I cannot talk about the day to day activities in the camp but I can either verify or deny many of the accusations that are being made.) Here's a list that might help you if you're willing to listen to an Ordained Elder who knows the facts rather than accusations made based on speculation. I'll respond here specifically to some of the ones I've heard.

1. The detainees have direct access to the International Red Cross representatives contrary to the accusations that they have no outside contact. Also, all the detainees are allowed to write and receive mail from family.

2. The detainees have their food prepared according to Islamic guidelines. The call to prayer is broadcast for them to go to prayer. Each detainee has the direction to Meccah painted in their cell. They are allowed to practice their religion without interference and are given the religious items they need to do so. They are allowed to observe Ramadan.

3. There are strict guidelines and training concerning human rights protections. If a service member sees a violation they are to report it and if asked to violate someone's human rights they are to consider it as an unlawful order. Those who violate are subject to prosecution.

If you are interested in more information please contact me. There is also an article about my work in Cuba which was published in the July issue of Esquire magazine (http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/Esquire/2005/07/01/884080).

Kent Svendsen
Chaplain (Major) USAR

[The Ressurrected One]

And, here's a reasoned argument from Mark Steyn in his latest opinion article on the same topic:


I’m not arguing the merits here so much as the politics. There’s certainly a discussion to be had about how to categorize these people. As things stand, they’re not covered by the Geneva Conventions — they’re unlawful combatants, captured fighting in civilian clothes rather than uniform, and, when it comes to name, rank and serial number, they lack at least two thereof, and even the first is often highly variable. As a point of “international law”, their fate is a matter entirely between Washington and the state of which they’re citizens (Saudi Arabia, mostly). I don’t think it’s a good idea to upgrade terrorists into lawful combatants. But if, like my namesake the British jurist Lord Steyn, you feel differently, fine, go ahead and make your case.

Where the anti-Gitmo crowd went wrong was in expanding its objections from the legal status of the prisoners to the treatment they‚re receiving. By any comparison — ie, not just with Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot — they’re getting better than they deserve. It’s the first gulag in history where the torture victims put on weight. Each prisoner released from Guantanamo receives a new copy of the Koran plus a free pair of blue jeans in his new size: the average detainee puts on 13 pounds during his stay, thanks to the “mustard-baked dill fish”, “baked Tandoori chicken breast” and other delicacies. These and other recipes from the gulag’s kitchen have now been collected by some Internet wags and published as The Gitmo Cookbook.

[FromWayDowntown]

I'm curious how "the Left" became some monolithic entity that marches in rigid lockstep, while "the Right" is some nuanced group whose memberships can be fairly distinguished from each other?

[spurster]

I would guess that after the various mistreatment scandals that the treatment has greatly improved at Gitmo. If there is anybody they want to torture (excuse me, I should say "stress") now, they will be sent to another country.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/21/opinion/21lewis.html

June 21, 2005
Guantánamo's Long Shadow
By ANTHONY LEWIS

Boston

WHEN Vice President Dick Cheney said last week that detainees at the American prison camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, were treated better than they would be "by virtually any other government on the face of the earth," he was carrying on what has become a campaign to whitewash the record of abuses at Guantánamo.

Right-wing commentators have been sounding the theme. Columnist Charles Krauthammer said the treatment of the Guantánamo prisoners had been "remarkably humane and tolerant."

Yes, and there is no elephant in the room.

Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation observed what went on in Guantánamo. One reported on July 29, 2004: "On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they had urinated or defecated on themselves and had been left there for 18, 24 hours or more."

Time magazine published an extended article last week on an official log of interrogations of one Guantánamo detainee over 50 days from November 2002 to January 2003. The detainee was Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi who is suspected of being the planned 20th hijacker on Sept. 11, 2001, but who was unable to enter the United States.

Mr. Kahtani was interrogated for as long as 20 hours at a stretch, according to the detailed log. At one point he was put on an intravenous drip and given 3½ bags of fluid. When he asked to urinate, guards told him that he must first answer questions. He answered them. The interrogator, not satisfied with the answers, told him to urinate in his pants, which he did. Thirty minutes later, the log noted, Mr. Kahtani was "beginning to understand the futility of his situation."

F.B.I. agents, reporting earlier on the treatment of Mr. Kahtani, said a dog was used "in an aggressive manner to intimidate" him. At one point, according to the log, Mr. Kahtani's interrogator told him that he needed to learn, like a dog, to show respect: "Began teaching detainee lessons such as stay, come and bark to elevate his social status to that of a dog. Detainee became very agitated."

At a minimum, the treatment of Mr. Kahtani was an exercise in degradation and humiliation. Such treatment is forbidden by three sources of law that the United States respected for decades - until the administration of George W. Bush.

The Geneva Conventions, which protect people captured in conflict, prohibit "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment." The scope of that clause's legal obligation has been debated, but previous American governments abided by it. President Bush decided that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban members who are detained at Guantánamo.

The United Nations Convention Against Torture, also ratified by the United States, requires signatories to "prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction ... cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment." The Bush administration declared that this provision did not apply to the treatment of non-Americans held outside the United States.

Finally, there is the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It makes cruelty, oppression or "maltreatment" of prisoners a crime. Armed services lawyers worried that some methods of interrogation might violate the Uniform Code and federal criminal statutes, exposing interrogators to prosecution. A Pentagon memorandum obtained by ABC News said a meeting of top military lawyers on March 8, 2003, concluded that "we need a presidential letter" approving controversial methods, to give interrogators immunity.

The idea that a president can legalize the unlawful evidently came from a series of memorandums written by Justice Department officials. They argued, among other things, that President Bush's authority as commander in chief to set interrogation methods could trump treaties and federal law.

Although President Bush decided to deny detainees at Guantánamo the protection of the Geneva Conventions, he did order that they must be treated "humanely." The Pentagon, responding to the Time magazine article on the treatment of Mr. Kahtani, said, "The Department of Defense remains committed to the unequivocal standard of humane treatment for all detainees, and Kahtani's interrogation plan was guided by that strict standard."

In the view of the administration, then, it is "humane" to give a detainee 3½ bags of I.V. fluid and then make him urinate on himself, force him to bark like a dog, or chain him to the floor for 18 hours.

No one can seriously doubt now that cruelties and indignities have been inflicted on prisoners at Guantánamo. Nor is there any doubt that worse has happened elsewhere - prisoners beaten to death by American soldiers, untold others held in secret locations by the Central Intelligence Agency, others rendered to be tortured by governments such as Uzbekistan's.

Since the widespread outrage over the photographs from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, Americans have seemingly ceased to care. It was reported yesterday that Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the former American commander in Iraq during the Abu Ghraib scandal, is being considered for promotion. Many people would say the mistreatment of Mohamed al-Kahtani, or of suspects who might well be innocent, is justified in a war with terrorists. Morality is outweighed by necessity.

The moral cost is not so easily put aside. We Americans have a sense of ourselves as a moral people. We have led the way in the fight for human rights in the world. Mistreating prisoners makes the world see our moral claims as hypocrisy.

Beyond morality, there is the essential role of law in a democracy, especially in American democracy. This country has no ancient mythology to hold it together, no kings or queens. We have had the law to revere. No government, we tell ourselves, is above the law.

Over many years the United States has worked to persuade and compel governments around the world to abide by the rules. By spurning our own rules, we put that effort at risk. What Justice Louis Brandeis said about law at home applies internationally as well: "If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law."

Anthony Lewis is a former Times columnist.

* Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

[The Ressurrected One]

I'm curious how "the Left" became some monolithic entity that marches in rigid lockstep, while "the Right" is some nuanced group whose memberships can be fairly distinguished from each other?
Don't change the subject.

[The Ressurrected One]

Sorry spurster, I don't see any torture described in that article.

I'm amazed; from Turban Durbin to the most ignorant idiot in this form, there is apparently no understanding of what exactly is torture.

[FromWayDowntown]

Sorry spurster, I don't see any torture described in that article.

I'm amazed; from Turban Durbin to the most ignorant idiot in this form, there is apparently no understanding of what exactly is torture.

That's funny, because what qualifies as torture seems to depend on what semantic games you can play in your method of describing a particular detainee. If you characterize these guys the right way, you can avoid practically any legal impediment to treating them however you fancy. You call them the right thing, and no real law (other than an amorphous concept of natural law) applies. That's pretty convenient.

But the Administration's word parsing doesn't stop there -- Lewis's column also makes the point that Bush (at some point) ordered that detainees be treated "humanely." You and I may differ on this, but my idea of treating someone humanely is not treating them in a way that stops just short of some textbook definition of "torture." I read somewhere that a tribunal in Europe had declared this type of conduct as "inhumane," though not "torture" when applied to IRA terrorists by the British.

You know, TRO I don't agree with Durbin's characterizations of what goes on at Gitmo -- which was the point of my original post in this thread, and it was on subject. I think he engaged in the worst kinds of hyperbole. I also believe, through the various stories from both sides, that for the most part, the work at Gitmo is being done properly. But it appalls me to hear some say, well, you know, there've been less than 100 reports of abuse out of Gitmo and only a few convictions of those engaged in the bad conduct; it appalls me to hear some say, in light of thsose facts, that there is no abuse occurring at Gitmo. Even a little abuse should be too much; even if you believe that the detainees are the worst form of scum to ever habitate the Earth, I think you stoop to their level by condoning abusive treatment through an ends-justify-the-means mentality. I'd say the same thing were it a Democratic President in Washington.

We should be the paragon of human rights, not a nation that is willing to manipulate words to justify abuses.

[The Ressurrected One]

That's funny, because what qualifies as torture seems to depend on what semantic games you can play in your method of describing a particular detainee. If you characterize these guys the right way, you can avoid practically any legal impediment to treating them however you fancy. You call them the right thing, and no real law (other than an amorphous concept of natural law) applies. That's pretty convenient.

But the Administration's word parsing doesn't stop there -- Lewis's column also makes the point that Bush (at some point) ordered that detainees be treated "humanely." You and I may differ on this, but my idea of treating someone humanely is not treating them in a way that stops just short of some textbook definition of "torture." I read somewhere that a tribunal in Europe had declared this type of conduct as "inhumane," though not "torture" when applied to IRA terrorists by the British.

You know, TRO I don't agree with Durbin's characterizations of what goes on at Gitmo -- which was the point of my original post in this thread, and it was on subject. I think he engaged in the worst kinds of hyperbole. I also believe, through the various stories from both sides, that for the most part, the work at Gitmo is being done properly. But it appalls me to hear some say, well, you know, there've been less than 100 reports of abuse out of Gitmo and only a few convictions of those engaged in the bad conduct; it appalls me to hear some say, in light of thsose facts, that there is no abuse occurring at Gitmo. Even a little abuse should be too much; even if you believe that the detainees are the worst form of scum to ever habitate the Earth, I think you stoop to their level by condoning abusive treatment through an ends-justify-the-means mentality. I'd say the same thing were it a Democratic President in Washington.

We should be the paragon of human rights, not a nation that is willing to manipulate words to justify abuses.
That's all well and good, spurster...until you realize there is a concerted effort on the part of Durbin, et. al. to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I'm satisfied that abuses are being investigated and properly adjudicated. And, regardless of what those abuses are, none of what I've seen points to systemic or institutional abuses. Therefore, I say leave them the fuck alone and let the military do their job in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, or wherever the hell else they're trying work.

But, again, I'm not going to lose sleep if the 20th hijacker is caused to wet his pants or made just a little uncomfortable from time to time.

[FromWayDowntown]

Thanks for getting the name right -- I at least bothered to get yours right.

And exactly what "concerted effort" are you talking about? What I hear is some politicians who question the propriety of the war, the means by which it is being prosecuted, or the results it is achieving. That's not a concerted effort to do anything. It's a bunch of politicians who are questioning policies that don't have the overwhelming support of the American public. That's what politicians are supposed to do.

I agreed that Durbin's statement was out of line, but you seem hellbent on lumping all democrats into one philosophical strawman, using the most egregious comments from anyone on the Left in an effort to try to prove some moral/political/practical superiority to your position. That's not particularly deep thought or analysis; though this is an internet forum, so such shortcuts can, of course, be forgiven.

I'll agree with you, too, that this isn't likely some institutional regime of inhumane treatment (though I noticed that you didn't address that question), but the fact that any inhumane treatment is occurring beyond the express orders of the President should be appalling to anyone. The emotions of fighting a war on terror don't justify ignorance of the Commander-in-Chief's direct orders. I have no problem with the military doing its job; I have a HUGE problem with members of the military taking unilateral action that reflects poorly on my country and the commitment of its people to protecting human rights.

[The Ressurrected One]

Thanks for getting the name right -- I at least bothered to get yours right.
Forgive me so I can sleep tonight...

And exactly what "concerted effort" are you talking about? What I hear is some politicians who question the propriety of the war, the means by which it is being prosecuted, or the results it is achieving. That's not a concerted effort to do anything. It's a bunch of politicians who are questioning policies that don't have the overwhelming support of the American public. That's what politicians are supposed to do.
Dick Durbin is a U.S. Senator. Only 100 of which exist out of a nation of 300 million people. You don't think our enemy and their sympathizers might get the idea he's an important person who just might represent the opinions of a whole hell of a lot of Americans?

Combine that with the fact that not one prominent Democrat has come out and condemned his assinine statement...and you get complicity.

I disagree. The Left, as a whole, is engaged in a concerted effort to undermine America's war effort in Iraq and elsewhere. And, sadly, they're succeeding. Not with reasoned argument but with hyperbolic nonsense such as this.

Really? That's what politicians are supposed to do?

Here's a Durbin press release from December 17, 1998:


I fully support President Clinton and our national security team's decision to take swift action against Saddam Hussein. . . .

I call on those who question the motives of the president and his national security advisors to join with the rest of America in presenting a united front to our enemies abroad.

The men and women who are risking their lives in defense of our national and global security deserve nothing less.
There's certainly no questioning Durbin's patriotism--at least when a Democrat is in the White House.

Incidentally, I would challenge you to find one prominent Republican Politician that gave voice to what many of us on the right were thinking at the time...that Clinton merely attacked Iraq to distract from some indiscretion.

You won't.

I agreed that Durbin's statement was out of line, but you seem hellbent on lumping all democrats into one philosophical strawman, using the most egregious comments from anyone on the Left in an effort to try to prove some moral/political/practical superiority to your position. That's not particularly deep thought or analysis; though this is an internet forum, so such shortcuts can, of course, be forgiven.
I don't see any Democrats condemning his statements. No. You've got Dean, and Conyers, and Shumer, and Waters, and Kennedy, and a whole host of other senior members of the party either supporting Durbin or echoing him.


I'll agree with you, too, that this isn't likely some institutional regime of inhumane treatment (though I noticed that you didn't address that question), but the fact that any inhumane treatment is occurring beyond the express orders of the President should be appalling to anyone. The emotions of fighting a war on terror don't justify ignorance of the Commander-in-Chief's direct orders. I have no problem with the military doing its job; I have a HUGE problem with members of the military taking unilateral action that reflects poorly on my country and the commitment of its people to protecting human rights.
First, I did say I believed it wasn't institutional. I'll also say, I don't believe it's inhumane. These people aren't in any danger of losing their life or any major bodily function as prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Hell, on average, their gaining weight and eating better than they would if they were still cowering in the mountain caves at Tora Bora.

These people are not being tortured or being treated inhumanely. Their merely being made very uncomfortable. And, I'm okay with that. Because, at the end of the day, they'll be handed a bar of soap, a meal, a towell, and a Koran.

[FromWayDowntown]

I read this:


I don't see any Democrats condemning his statements. No. You've got Dean, and Conyers, and Shumer, and Waters, and Kennedy, and a whole host of other senior members of the party either supporting Durbin or echoing him.

And then I saw this:



Sen. Durbin Apologizes for Gitmo Remarks

WASHINGTON - Under fire from Republicans and some fellow Democrats, Sen. Dick Durbin apologized Tuesday for comparing American interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp to Nazis and other historically infamous figures.

"Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line," the Illinois Democrat said. "To them I extend my heartfelt apologies."

His voice quaking and tears welling in his eyes, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate also apologized to any soldiers who felt insulted by his remarks.

"They're the best. I never, ever intended any disrespect for them," he said.

The apology came a week after Durbin, the Senate minority whip, quoted from an FBI agent's report describing detainees at the Naval base in a U.S.-controlled portion of Cuba as being chained to the floor without food or water in extreme temperatures.

"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," the senator said June 14.

The comment created a buzz on the Internet and among conservative talk radio hosts, but Durbin initially refused to apologize.

"This administration should apologize to the American people for abandoning the Geneva Conventions and authorizing torture techniques that put our troops at risk and make Americans less secure," he said the day after his initial comments.

By last Friday, Durbin was trying to clarify his comments, yet the White House and top Republicans including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist refused to relent. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in an interview scheduled for broadcast Wednesday on Fox News radio's "The Tony Snow Show," tried to equate the comment with actress Jane Fonda calling U.S. soldiers war criminals during a visit to North Vietnam in 1972.

On Tuesday, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley — a fellow Democrat — added his voice to the chorus of criticism, saying, "I think it's a disgrace to say that any man or woman in the military would act like that."

Durbin said in his apology: "I made reference to Nazis, to Soviets, and other repressive regimes. Mr. President, I've come to understand that's a very poor choice of words."

Somehow, I never really expected any acknowledgment of the apology or the pressure from Democrats that presaged it -- again, why admit that you're just blowing over strawmen? I guess life is so much easier when you can just cast broad generalizations about half of the electorate.

Durbin did the right thing here. He shouldn't have ever made the statements he did, and he owned up to that and apologized.

[The Ressurrected One]

I'm sorry. I knew about the Daley comments but, not considering him a prominent Democrat in National Politics, I ignored him.

And, I notice the article says "some" then goes on to only mention Daley.