Worst Case Scenario
Private Bowe R. Bergdahl, who is being held captive by Taliban militants. (Photo: AFP / Getty Images)
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Columnist
Tuesday 21 July 2009
The coward wretch whose hand and heart
Can bear to torture aught below,
Is ever first to quail and start
From the slightest pain or equal foe.
- Bertrand Russell
truthoutThe torture debate in America got real three weeks ago.
Oh, the debate has been around for years now, of course, ever since the photos of what happened in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq came to light. Men covered in feces, bent double and lashed to bedframes, their faith humiliated by the menstrual blood smeared on their faces, their bodies savaged by dogs, and worse, reports of the rape of women and children.
Yes, the torture debate has been around for a while now, recently revisited by President Obama, who condemned and discontinued the practice, and by enablers of torture like Cheney and John Yoo, who have labored mightily to defend it. It's been quite the hot topic among the chattering classes of American political discourse, a dialogue in three parts: one group condemning the practice, another group championing it, and a third group - the media professionals - taking no position and trying not to offend anyone, so they can get the big names back on the set for the Sunday shows.
Three weeks ago, however, the whole nature of the torture debate changed irrevocably when an American soldier from Idaho named Bowe Bergdahl somehow fell into the hands of the Taliban in Afghanistan. They have him now, and God help him, because it was the United States government under the administration of George W. Bush that set the terms for how anyone captured can and should be treated.
If the Taliban decide Bergdahl has information they want, they can waterboard him until he talks. They can compress his body and cover him with insects, they can rob him of sleep and deny him food, they can beat him and slather his body with his own waste, they can shove sticks into his rectum, they can rape him, and they can murder him. They can hand him over to representatives of another government and have him whisked away to some far-flung dungeon where "enhanced interrogation" has an even darker and more savage definition. For sure, they can deny him due process of any kind and never, ever, ever, ever let him go home again.
They could do this whether or not the United States had engaged in similar practices, but because we did these things, they can do these things and still claim the moral high ground. Why not? It was the United States government under the administration of George W. Bush who plowed that high ground into the gutter. Everyone stands the same height when they're face-down in the sewer.
One thing the Taliban apparently cannot do, however, is videotape their prisoner. Several days ago, a tape of Bergdahl, with his head shaved, pleading to be sent home to his parents, was released by his captors. "I am scared," said Bergdahl in the video. "I'm scared I won't be able to go home. It is very unnerving to be a prisoner. I have my girlfriend who is hoping to marry. I have my grandma and grandpas. I have a very, very good family that I love back home in America. And I miss them every day that I'm gone. I miss them and I'm afraid that I might never see them again and that I'll never be able to tell them that I love them again. I'll never be able to hug them."
The US government reacted swiftly to the video of Bergdahl. "We condemn the use of this video and the public humiliation of prisoners," said US military spokesman Col. Greg Julian. "It is against international law. We are doing everything we can to return this soldier to safety."
How hard it must have been for the US military to release a statement like that without feeling sick at heart and scared to death. The terrible irony and hypocrisy of the statement they released about the Bergdahl video must have been searing; we have set the table in such a way that torture is a positive action that saves lives, but videotapes are right out? No, that doesn't scan, and we know it, and the Taliban know it, and dollars to donuts Bergdahl knows it, too. Is he waiting in terror for the torture to begin? Has it already started?
The torture debate in America got real three weeks ago, and every American so-called Christian who has defended the practice can appreciate the lesson: we reap what we sow.
Pray Bowe Bergdahl doesn't reap it for us
Oh come on now. Obviously that soldiers is overexaggerating. Limbaugh told me that those Abu Ghraib incidents were the equivalent of college hazing, after all.
My prediction is that those for torture will state that, being a member of the Armed Forces, the soldier rightly has access to POW/Geneva Convention protections. They would be correct, but would seemingly miss the point of holding a moral high ground.
Well, that doesn't make it right. I have heard of hazings going farther than the Abu Ghraib incidents, but people were prosecuted on some of them too. The remark, if Limbaugh said that, is understandable. The soldiers did get punished.
But they were not tortured! Treated wrong, yes. Criminally, yes. Still speaking of Abu Ghraib though. If you mean waterboarding the three people, what we did I would say does not class as torture... But rather close...
I'm sure Private Bowe R. Bergdahl feels a lot better now that he knows he won't be tortured, 'but rather close' (whatever that's supposed to mean)
Are you really going to make such a silly statement? These people cut off heads, and you are worried about the morality of waterboarding?
What's silly about it? We have dragged ourselves down to their standards. By which moral grounds are you going to claim that they're 'savages' and we're the 'good guys'?
We imprison them. We torture them. We sodomize them. We on them. Tell me, who are the savages again?
And we punished those who did the things not authorized.
Private Bowe R. Bergdahl != Khalid Shaikh Mohammed
</thread>
What I meant was that even if the same things are done to our soldier, that we did to others, people will call it torture because he's protected by the Geneva conventions, or they won't call it torture but still say it's illegal, without missing the moral ramifications.
Come on now WC. You know leadership should be punished as much as the lowliest soldier.
There's no way you can look at the Abu Ghraib photos and not think leadership either approved, or f'd up in a huge way. It was systemic, and not just the actions of a 'few' bad apples.
I mean, we've killed people trying to interrogate them... do we just say "whoops" and punish the person who went too far, and not fix the system itself?
So the amount that we should be morally ok with torture is equal to the usefulness of the prisoner?
Interesting theory.
So if they captured a general, it'd be cool for them to torture him the way we did Mohammed?
Or are you saying that Mohammed's a dirty evil guy, and our guys aren't, so it's ok to torture Mohammed?
How do you know it was not authorized?
Are you simply going by what Rumsfeld told you?
We still haven't punished those that created, ordered and are responsible for the 'administrative detentions'. You're telling me you're in favor of punishing those too? ALL of them?
Prisoner control has never been a business handled by the president despite his official le "commander in chief". Obama condemns those ruthless behaviors executed by his fellow agents working for intelligence agency, which seems the most we can expect to be done by the president. Agents directly in charge of the intelligence agencies don't give a about whatever Obama demonstrates, anyway the president has to leave the House in 4 or 8 years, while those sophisticated military officials can still keep their positions and continue to press on the prisoners in order to reap some valuable intelligence, which will definitely add more stars onto their badges.
However, I don't think Mr. Berdahl has received or is likely to taste any physical torture on his body, whatever those mothafukers have done to him is nothing more than some threat. Taliban just intends to crumble his mind and turn him into kind of pawn used against US, for instance, his words will surely shake the minds of the millions of US troops all over the world. I'm afraid his words were totally designed one-by-one by the terrorists, otherwise they wouldn't be that dumb even though Berdahl was under big pressure. I fathom some CIA agents are going to either rescue or kill Mr. Berdahl, and the later scenario easily beats the former one in likelihood.
Really? Tell that to the 'ban.
Orwell would be proud.
That's exactly what he's saying. We're the good guys and can do no wrong.
I don't pray, but I will make an exception for this soldier. Hope they make it quick.
It is completely laughable to think the 'ban should play by rules; it is just as laughable to think America gets anything out of war by playing by rules.
Please. These people are stone throwing savages. We've been there for 6 or 7 years just because we like the weather.
[/sarcasm]
William Pitt. Of democraticunderground.com fame?
isn't he one of the guys who 3 years ago told the world he had inside knowledge that scooter libby had already been indicted and that Fitzmas was guaranteed ?
Without reading the article I can't take anything he says seriously.
The base commander was demoted. Isn't that good enough for you? As for showing it was approved by the chain of command, nobody found such evidence.
Just wondering, do you think that KSM and the PFC are both on equal ground?
I also like how they decided that the waterboarding and etc is the excuse to use why the Taliban, Al Qaeda, etc can and will cut off anyone's head. This isnt the first time that the US has ever "tortured", US soldiers in WWII killed Germans and Japanese instead of taking them prisoner, anyone doubt that servicemen in Korea and Vietnam didnt commit any crimes against POW's? Of course not, it was only until Bush came into office and decided to try to protect the US that all of a sudden because some idiots decided to photograph what they did that we've lost the moral high ground and our people deserve to get their heads cut off.
Last edited by PEP; 07-22-2009 at 10:45 PM.
I'm sure that he thinks that the President and VP approved of what happened there at Abu. And I'm pretty sure that he hasnt been in a combat environment where these things will and do happen, there is not always an officer or SNCO around, and the stress of the situation your in will sometimes make you do stupid things. Being deployed to Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Balad, Manas, and Camp Victory doesnt count as being in the combat zone.
Ah, so we should debase ourselves to the level of any enemy we face?
If we face an enemy that cuts off hands and feet, we're still morally righteous if we only cut off hands.
Interesting moral theory.
To be fair, I haven't deployed to a 'combat' zone. But Abu Ghraib was not just an example of 'things happening'. There's a line, and they obviously crossed it.
Do these things happen? Yeah, they might. But the fact that it did without being squashed quickly, to the point where these guys thought they could TAKE PICTURES of it and it was all good, gives us a black eye everywhere internationally.
As far as the commanding officer being demoted, that is a good thing. However, I'm inclined to believe that these methods were ok'd at higher levels, given some of the memos that have come out. (Don't have them ready at this moment: I'll try to look for them.)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
