The heart of torture
Is this horse dead yet?
We may be done discussing torture and need to move on, but in a comment under the post below jackscolon managed to state the crux of the matter a little differently. I think it would be profitable to consider it in this form. He thinks that j.morgan and I would agree with the following statement:
"Our [America's] moral and ethical ideology demands that we value the rights of aliens to such an extent that their treatment supercedes our security."
I can't speak for j.morgan, though I think he would agree with what I'm about to say: no, jackscolon, that's not the case.
The above quote has a hidden premise: it presumes that by not Guantanamo-ing people whom we suspect of "being terrorists," or whatever they're in there for, we increase the risk that, in the words of Dick Cheney, "we'll be hit again." Here's what I think: I think there's positively no "actionable intelligence" to be gained from the current inmates that's worth this AT BEST questionable set-up. Here's a different case.
It's September 9, 2001, we KNOW that there's a plot to crash planes into buildings somewhere in America, and we KNOW we have the 20th hijacker. I will not say that we're justified in doing whatever we want to this person--I want to bracket that discussion off. What I will say is that that's a different ballgame than the one we're in now.
It's been great debating difficult-to-decide metaphysical value claims with everyone, but now that I think about it, there are some empirical issues relevant here that I seriously doubt anyone participating in this blog can answer: what "intelligence" are we gaining from the motley crew we've assembled in our detention facilities around the world? If none, jackscolon, standingout, redhurt and the rest have a much weaker case. If some, j.morgan and I would have to think hard about what is and is not justifiable during war time.
Bottom line: if we know there's no purpose to our fun at Guantanamo, we don't even have to settle the quoted statement above.
posted by CharlesPeirce @ 6:55 AM
20 comments
20 Comments:
Maybe your right, but like you said we can't answer that question.
The stated purpose of Gitmo is also to keep these people out of Iraq and Afghanistan where we believe with complete certainty they'll be working to obstruct the nascent democracies there. I do wonder though how large a threat these few hundred might pose.
"jackscolon managed to state the crux of the matter a little differently. I think it would be profitable to consider it in this form."
yes! validation for posting!
Also, I agree that there is little intelligence value to be gained from Gitmo,especially since we are so reluctant to bring to trial any of the detainees because of their imprisonment sans due process. However, I'd rather have all enemy combatants rot in Cuba than have one US death attributed to their release.
Ok, the second part of that first sentence is really not in any way logically related to the first part, as we could get useful intelligence without putting them on trial. Sorry
'I think there's positively no "actionable intelligence" to be gained from the current inmates that's worth this AT BEST questionable set-up.'
I absolutely disagree absolutely, in the most absolute of language. The information may not be timely anymore, but you've no grounds to claim it isn't actionable. Interrogating the ~550 detainees who have had years of experience in their various terrorist cells and who are most likely reticent to provide *any* info is a time-hungry task. The fact that we've released some of the prisoners and later killed them on the battlefield indicates to me that these are not broken/ruined individuals, but hardened terrorists who have dedicated their lives to preserving and promoting their (destructive) way of life. That, my friend, is a threat to national security.
I wonder whether the intelligence is even timely anymore. It's quite possible (probable) that some of the detainees have intelligence on cells in other countries we can use, but the organizations in Afghanistan and Iraq have been so thoroughly disrupted at this point that I wonder whether intelligence so old is really worth much.
But this question is absolutely out of the region of our ability to answer. The government, while isn't ever going to say anything substantial about it; the information we have access to in the media is vague or old at best and absolute misdirection at best.
That being said, I'm absolutely against returning these people to places from which they can still attack us, especially those soldiers who held leadership positions in terror organizations. I don't think they're release necessarily increases the chance we'll be hit HERE again - only that they'll most likely go to work against us somewhere (Iraq) and we'll be dealing with them again. If it's true that most of them would take up arms against us if granted freedom, isn't it more humane to leave them in Gitmo than risk the lives of Americans and Iraqi civilians that will be spent in killing them later?
The esteemed Secretary of Defense seems to think that these 'disrupted' rebel groups will hold out for another 12 years. Having however-many-thousand troops on the ground won't deter serious terrorists, despite the progress we've been making finding weapon caches and nabbing ringleaders.
It isn't timely, and you many not trust the media/govt doublespeak, but don't assume anything about the value of intelligence gathered. I don't assume it *is* actionable, but for reasons previously stated, I have a hunch it is. (Not just for 'other' countries -- if these people can leave Gitmo and come back to be leaders in Iraqi terror cells, they've obviously retained some knowledge that is still relevant)
regarding the last sentence of RedHurt's comment...I'm not sure 'humane' is the proper word...perhaps 'prudent'? (My opinion, of course)
So, basically, the conservatives in the room want me to trust that the government is telling me the truth, in that...
-these detainees are hardened terrorists
-they're dangerous
-they will return to the battlefield and kill American soldiers
-they're bursting with intelligence
Where's the skepticism?
inviolable said:
"The information may not be timely anymore, but you've no grounds to claim it isn't actionable."
Look, neither of us has seen any intelligence whatsoever. The burden of proof rests on YOU to prove that it IS "actionable," and not vice versa. If we're walking together on a street and come to an unmarked warehouse, you don't turn to me and say "that warehouse is full of cars--just try and prove it's not." It's up to YOU to prove what's inside it if you think you know. But, alas, in its infinite wisdom our government has all this classified, so even if there were actionable intelligence, we would never know anyway.
I'm going to remain skeptical of our government's ability to run a detention center, just as I'm skeptical of its ability to fight wars, distribute welfare, manage social security, and tax me.
Your car analogy is incredibly weak. These people were picked up off of battlefields where they were using RPG's and machine guns to kill people. We have only ~500 detainees out of the thousands of people captured. Some of the detainees who were released have been later killed fighting us because they went straight back to war. After being interrogated by listening to Cristina Aguilera, wouldn't you head straight for the AK-47? The information released to the media regarding things like this is incredibly weak. I see those as strong points in favor for believing what I've been told and supporting continued detainment. I'm as skeptical as the next guy, and I'd love to know more about what's going on in there, but what's your point? Are you calling for more checks and balances? Are we not?
None of us are saying it's wonderful these people are there - only that if what the government has said about them is true, I see no reason to let them go. Are you saying we should let them go?
I like my warehouse analogy and think it's totally sweet.
You have to say "you and I can't know what we're getting out of these people, but I trust the government."
That's weak.
By holding them we're manufacturing enemies.
Has our military had any role in creating our enemies?
I read your article, virtutis. To help clarify my own position, I'll rewrite something I had posted on another blog:
"The pathetic bleating of the Democrats as they pretend to be "shocked" by what's happening at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo is...pathetic. (Did I use that word already? It just fits so well.) There's nothing wrong with slapping around a terrorist if you need information. HOWEVER, what I object to more is US hegemony in general. I object to the war in Iraq straight up, so while I don't really care about prisoners' "rights" being violated in Iraq, I can't exactly say "Good work, US justice system," because I don't believe that we should be there in the first place."
ROCK
me
HARD PLACE
No, see, here's where I think you're driving off of the moutain: I'm not saying, "I love Gitmo and everything that happens there and not knowing everything that goes on." I'm sayin, "I wish I knew more about the validity of holding people in Gitmo. I understand that the government probably isn't going to tell me more, so as it stands, I'm giong to be skeptical of our validity in holding them. At the same time, I don't want them released." I don't know enough to say that it's worth holding all of them, but I know enough to believe we shouldn't just let them all go.
So again I'm asking: what's your point? Yes, we understand that the US has had a hand in creating our enemies. We agree with you on that. You're just sitting over there between your rock and hard place, sipping a magaritta and asking for the defense of ideas we, or at least I, haven't been presenting.
Me: "I don't think we should let them go."
You: "You absolutely must justify the entire process, the war, and the justice system. Go!"
ROCK
you
margaritta
HARDPLACE
And by margaritta I of course mean a margarita with two t's.
How is "There should be no Guantanamo in the first place" not a point?
Haven't you appreciated me giving ground on the abuse issue (which I think is stupid)?
To clarify: the abuse issue is stupid--me giving ground is not stupid. It is to be appreciated, lauded, and possibly garlanded.
I appreciate, laud and garland your ground giving movement on the abuse issue. I find the position you've taken just and favorable towards conversation.
I guess I missed where you said there should be no GITMO in the first place. I can't speak much to that - I need info on who the people who are being held are, what they really know, and what they'd do if they weren't taken prisoner.
CP-- I understand and agree that we should examine and vet the information the government chooses to give us regarding its military justice system. Please note my second comment -- I said I didn't unquestioningly trust the gov't reports. I also said in that post that I've found significant evidence supporting the gov'ts claims, from various sources. I'm not just whimsically positing the existence of cars in the warehouse, I'm pointing out the semis and car carriers with the Maserati logos on them parked outside.
I want nothing more than to have the terrorsts remain detained and the innocents set free from gitmo. I'm not willing to let 'suspicion' suffice as grounds for lengthy imprisonment. But until we get some precogs in the US armed forces, I believe it is reasonable to enforce stricter guidelines of military justice.
Post a Comment
<< Home