Who We Are

[righthand]

New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/01/op...1herbert.html?
Mr. McCain said Americans "hold ourselves" to a higher standard.
Op-Ed Columnist By BOB HERBERT
Published: August 1, 2005

You won't find many people willing to accuse John McCain, John Warner or Lindsey Graham of being soft on terrorism. But the three Republican senators are giving the White House fits with their attempt to get legislation approved that would expressly prohibit cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody.

The real question is why is it necessary to need legislation approved that would expressly prohibit cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of anyone in U.S. custody. Any civilised country should not need the obvious. So why the resistance?

There was a dramatic encounter during the floor debate last week when Senator Jeff Sessions, a Republican from Alabama, spoke out against the legislation, saying there was no need for it because, as he put it, the detainees are not prisoners of war, "they are terrorists." Senator McCain, of Arizona, argued that the debate "is not about who they are. It's about who we are." Americans, said Mr. McCain, "hold ourselves" to a higher standard.

I do hope that McCain's honourable stand now stands to him when he runs in 2008. God help us, but there are few like him in US politics.

Senator McCain has been the point person on the legislative amendments, and his office has released a letter from more than a dozen retired officers, including generals, admirals and former prisoners of war, offering support for his effort to establish standards designed to rein in the abusive treatment of prisoners. The letter said, in part, "The abuse of prisoners hurts America's cause in the war on terror, endangers U.S. service members who might be captured by the enemy, and is anathema to the values Americans have held dear for generations."

Bob Herbert, one honest correspondent.

[Athena]

Absolutely, the question is the behavior we identify America with, not who the other is. And that goes for Israel too!

My grandmother's generation values:

1. We respect everyone because we are respectful people.
2. We act with dignity and protect the dignity of others.
3. We do everything with integrity.

Our behavior determines the good or harm we do to human relationships, and our image.

[Osborn F Enready]

Good post Athena, unfortunately your Grandmother and my grandparents were not perfect though, since they didn't stop the centralization of all power in this nation under the New Deal, or the War and Emergency Powers Act.

This was probably the biggest downfall of our society, since it has left future generations with almost no option but violent revolt since power is now out of control, with no checks or balances.

So who is to blame?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready So who is to blame?

If I had to answer that question, I would say the generartion that gave birth to the "Greatest Generation".


They were the ones that "bought" The New Deal. They are the ones that set us along this path to economic disaster, and international war. They are the ones that elected the benevolent conscience to rule over us.


Ironically, they probably thought they were doing us a favor by election the "lesser of the two evils".

[Athena]

Now you guys are chewing on a difficult issue. Personally, I am not into blaming that generation for anything! I have not put my stamp of approval on things that are happening today. In fact soon I am meeting with those who oppose war for a demonstration today.
What pushings political decisions and history is much bigger than the individuals caught up in the current of histoy.

When the number 1 concern is getting enough food to keep the family alive, that is the number 1 concern, be it in the US or Iran or Russia. Instead of blame, you might you look for cause.

Going from there, our industry was modeled after England's autocratic model. We entered WWI crying democracy and autocracy can not co exist, but they have always existed in the US. If we want to blame someone, we need to go back to the beginning of industrial revolution and we need to examine some opinions that some hold dear. Frankly, I don't think people are prepared to do this.

One of our main objections to countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia, is a few profit from the countries resources while the many endure poverty. We have justified wars on this. Yet there are some who post here, who think individuals have a right to all they can get, and the government is intervention is the evil. Interesting, huh?

[Sonart]

I've been trying to argue this point for a couple of years now, certainly since the disclosures at Abu Ghraib. Americans like to flatter themselves that ours is a nation of compassionate, enlightened ideals... human rights, rule of law, fair play, etc. But when it came to the prisoners from Afghanistan and Iraq, suddenly the rationalizations were flying... they're not technically prisoners of war, the Geneva conventions don't apply, etc.

But the 800 lb sledgehammer was always this... "They're terrorists, and their comrades are out to kill innocent people. That means there's lives at risk if we don't get them to talk. By torturing them, we're saving lives.

I think McCain's line was outstanding... it's not about who they are, it's about who we are. I put it this way... either we're the good guys, as we constantly tell ourselves, or we're not. It's about having the courage of our convictions, even in the face of deadly risk.

.

[monty of ll]

Could it be that the media, especially the internet, is bringing the torture to light much more now than it did during WW2 for example? Does anyone think that the same torture tactics didn't exist during that war and on all sides? I think it's a matter of first, is it considered a good and justifiable war which would then make the torture palatable to all, or at least most. And second, there just has to be a better job done of keeping the torture of POW's a secret. The motive in keeping it secret of course is to prevent the enemy from being able to claim fair turnabout.

Nobody claims that the enemies of the U.S. don't torture their captives for valuable information. Right? Why would anyone think the U.S. will ever rise above their enemies?

No, I don't condone the torture of prisoners and the holding them indefinitely without even charging them with crimes, but I happen to understand the reality of war.

[Sonart]

Quote by: monty Does anyone think that the same torture tactics didn't exist during that war and on all sides?

To some extent, sure, Americans accepted some forms of... um... coercion. Here's the water torture being used in the field in Vietnam.



Since I remember photos like this appearing in LIFE and other news magazines, I assume that Americans accepted a certain degree of brutality in the battle field. But I think if you suggested that Americans had our own versions of the Hanoi Hilton, or SS torture chambers, that we used torture on held prisoners in a sustained manner, as a matter of policy, we would have been appalled. We certainly wouldn't want to know about it and those committing such activities wouldn't want us to know about it because we, the public, would have rebelled!

After all, remember the affect this image had on the American public...



Yes, I believe Americans actually do hold ourselves to a higher standard, the realities of war and all.

.

[monty of ll]

Sonart, you said: "We certainly wouldn't want to know about it and those committing such activities wouldn't want us to know about it because we, the public, would have rebelled!"

That's my point, the people wouldn't want to know about it, the military wouldn't want the people to know about it, and because of a lack of coverage by the media equal to today's coverage, you didn't know about it to the same degree. I don't see what the Vietnamese prisoner being shot on the street would have to do with this other than making the brutality visible. I do remember vividly that person getting shot but I don't remember exactly the impact that it had on the American people. But I will take your word that it did, although as I have said, this isn't torture.

And now today, the American people seem to be divided down the middle on what is necessary and what constitutes torture. Have you seen the pictures of Guantanamo that portray it as a tropical paradise and have you heard the rhetoric which claims that the people being held in Guantanamo without charges are lucky to be there, etc.?

I'm not claiming that Americans are any different than other nationalities, I'm claiming that Americans are the same when it comes to torture. All it requires is an acceptance that your war is moral, legal, and necessary.

[Prometheus]

Yah, people do shitty things in war. There is no reason to work ourselves into a masterbatory sence of self righteousnes by incessently reminicing over what a shitty bunch of people we are. I am so bleeding tired of America haters. Good grief, grow up and deal with life.

[Chris]

Quote by: Sonart Yes, I believe Americans actually do hold ourselves to a higher standard, the realities of war and all. .

The second photo was really a Vietnamese guy killing another Vietnamese guy. But yes that was a powerful photo. Capable of turning American opinion. Funny how we don't see much from Iraq now a days. The American news is heavily censored.

[Athena]

Quote by: Prometheus Yah, people do shitty things in war. There is no reason to work ourselves into a masterbatory sence of self righteousnes by incessently reminicing over what a shitty bunch of people we are. I am so bleeding tired of America haters. Good grief, grow up and deal with life.

You are way to close too accepting torture and throwing out all rules of human decency. At this moment, elementing those with this mentality seems the best thing for humanity.
Is there a better reason for killing, than to element those who have no standard of human decency and therefore are beyond the control of social agreements?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Athena You are way to close too accepting torture and throwing out all rules of human decency. At this moment, elementing those with this mentality seems the best thing for humanity. Is there a better reason for killing, than to element those who have no standard of human decency and therefore are beyond the control of social agreements?

Perhaps.


How about if a group of people were to steal your money to carry out such agressions on others without your consent?


Particulrly since those accused have only been tried in the court of public opinion.

[monty of ll]

There is a photo from My Lai somewhere on the internet which is in my opinion, as powerful as any. It is of a familly of Vietnamese people standing before an American military group. The teenage girl is trying to put her blouse back on and her mother is screaming at the U.S. soldiers because they had just raped her daughter. Another woman is holding a little baby and there is a child of perhaps 5 or 6 clinging to her in terror. The grandmother is standing with the group. Ten seconds after the picture was taken the entire group of people lay shot dead on the ground.

Just in case any one starts getting the idea that their country rises above all others when it comes to brutality. God knows, all Canadians still live with the shame of the brutality of our 'Airborne regiment' which has been disbanded.

The purpose of discussions such as this is to bring to light brutality and torture which has happened in the past and use those instances as examples in the interest of preventing it from continuing to happen. Those bringing up such examples should not be subject to rude accusations of being America haters. Those persons who accuse others of American hate need to realize that it isn't Americans we hate, it's the ones who perform such evil deeds that we are directing our anger towards. In some cases the ones who perform the evil deeds just happen to be Americans. Nuff said!

[Sonart]

Quote by: monty That's my point, the people wouldn't want to know about it, the military wouldn't want the people to know about it, and because of a lack of coverage by the media equal to today's coverage, you didn't know about it to the same degree.

Even despite the agregious and cynical tabloidization of the American media, I still have a deep and resounding respect for the concept of a free press, and continue to believe that it's one of the institutions that makes American democracy work. And while I in fact support the right of the military to control the battlefield environment by controlling the modern, 24-hr, instant real-time satelite global media as it applies to that battlefield environment, I still believe that, more so than most other governments, our free press will eventually get the story, and that the military is coming to understand that, eventually, the press will get to the story. Heck, just say the words Abu Ghraib.

Quote by: Chris The second photo was really a Vietnamese guy killing another Vietnamese guy.

{{SIGH}} Yes, Chris, I am quite aware that the photo shows South Vietnamese police chief, Lt. Col. Loan, executing a Viet Cong who had just murdered his family. I only look like an idiot. :rolleyes: The point being that, as you correctly pointed out, the American public was completely shocked that even our allies were capable of such conduct.

Quote by: monty There is a photo from My Lai somewhere on the internet which is in my opinion, as powerful as any.

The significance of My Lai was that the perpetrators were tried and convicted of murder.

Quote by: Prometheus There is no reason to work ourselves into a masterbatory sence of self righteousnes by incessently reminicing over what a shitty bunch of people we are. I am so bleeding tired of America haters.

Self righteous is as self righteous does, Prometheus. If we're going to hold ourselves up to the world as the paragons of virtue, the land of the free and the home of the brave, then it behooves us to walk the walk... to show the courage of our convictions. Otherwise we're no better than the tinpot dictators we claim so much moral authority over.

.

[monty of ll]

Sonart, you said: "The significance of My Lai was that the perpetrators were tried and convicted of murder."

I didn't know that there were perpetrator(s) tried and convicted for murder. I thought that Calley was the only one to be convicted of murder. Calley paid dearly for his crime by serving at least two or three months behind bars I believe. Yes, My Lai was significant in the fact that it was the only case where there was anyone charged with murder of the Vietnamese civilian population. I have speculated on just how many similar instances there were during that war but I will keep it to myself.

More recently though was the Canadian Airborne Regiment's brutal murder of civilians in Somalia. And it may be of interest to you and others here that one Mike -----, a member of that regiment, took part in a forum which I belonged to a few years ago. He didn't seem to be all that remorseful over what took place in Somalia IMO. Lots of goood excuses why things happened! I think it goes to prove that we need to keep a close eye on these military individuals if we expect them to do our bidding and not overstep the bounds. IMO there are many in our militarys who are prone to such behaviour if left to their own resources.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Sonart Self righteous is as self righteous does, Prometheus. If we're going to hold ourselves up to the world as the paragons of virtue, the land of the free and the home of the brave, then it behooves us to walk the walk... to show the courage of our convictions. Otherwise we're no better than the tinpot dictators we claim so much moral authority over.

The thing about that statement is that they wear the same tin pot helmets as those they oppose, only they do not see it.


It is a battle of ideology they wish to classify as something else.


One group oppses the others "intent" to convert vast segments of the oppositions own camp to their side. Meanwhile, they make war on them for their "intent" to convert vast segments of the oppositions own camp to their own side.


Perfect irony.


George Bush wants to install "democracy" throughout the world, and Islam wants to install Islam throughout the world. the question that remains is "who is the aggressor"?

[Sonart]

Quote by: Milton George Bush wants to install "democracy" throughout the world, and Islam wants to install Islam throughout the world. the question that remains is "who is the aggressor"?

Indeed. For instance, how do you "install" democracy? Isn't that an oxymoron?

.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Sonart Indeed. For instance, how do you "install" democracy? Isn't that an oxymoron? .

Reguardless of the answer to that question, to which I concur, our side is spending Billions of dollars, and has mobilzed half away around the globe to advance their agenda.


When has Islam attempted such an assault on the West to justify this kind of reaction from Bush?


(I am supposing that nobody will answer that Iraq was complicit in 9/11 at this point. Fishing for an entirely different answer)