Booman Tribune

When Torture Isn't Good Enough

by Steven D
Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 12:44:02 PM EST

Some of you may recall reports from Iraq which described the egregious tactic of US troops kidnapping the family members of detainees in order to "assist" the interrogation process. At the time we were informed this was a only a limited effort, and that all such family members detained were people who were known to be guilty of aiding the insurgents.

As we know all too well by now, such "official" remarks are often a flat out lie to cover up systematic abuses. Salon's David Benjamin has a story up that reveals the use of kidnapping family members of detainees in Iraq by US forces is the standard operating procedure for many interrogations:

July 14, 2006 | Congress has demanded that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld hand over a raft of documents to Congress that could substantiate allegations that U.S. forces have tried to break terror suspects by kidnapping and mistreating their family members. Rumsfeld has until 5 p.m. Friday to comply.

It now appears that kidnapping, scarcely covered by the media, and absent in the major military investigations of detainee abuse, may have been systematically employed by U.S. troops. Salon has obtained Army documents that show several cases where U.S. forces abducted terror suspects’ families. After he was thrown in prison, Cpl. Charles Graner, the alleged ringleader at Abu Ghraib, told investigators the military routinely kidnapped family members to force suspects to turn themselves in.

Yes, there's nothing like the threat of having your daughter or wife raped by American soldiers to loosen one's tongue. Why, I'd say anything they wanted me to say, I'd sign any confession put before me, if my wife or daughter was in the hands of foreign troops who had occupied my country. It might not bear any relation to reality, but at that point I could care less. Protecting my child or wife would be all that I cared about.

And what works with daughters and wives can work equally as well with sons:

(cont.)

In a hearing before Shays' Government Reform subcommittee last February, Provance testified that the Army had retaliated against him. Provance also made the disturbing allegation that interrogators broke an Iraqi general, Hamid Zabar, by imprisoning and abusing his frail 16-year-old son. Waxman was shocked. "Do you think this practice was repeated with other children?" he asked Provance. "I don't see why it would not have been, sir," Provance replied. Zabar's son had been apprehended with his father and held at Abu Ghraib, though the boy hadn't done anything wrong. "He was useless," Provance said about the boy in a phone interview with Salon from Heidelberg, Germany, where he is still in the Army. "He was of no intelligence value."

But, Provance said, interrogators grew frustrated when the boy's father, Zabar, wouldn't talk, despite a 14-hour interrogation. So they stripped Zabar's son naked and doused him with mud and water. They put him in the open back of a truck and drove around in the frigid January night air until the boy began to freeze. Zabar was then made to look at his suffering son.

Naturally, steps have been taken to give the higher ups "plausible deniability."

There is no paper trail that shows that kidnapping or abusing the family of suspects might have been official Department of Justice or Pentagon policy. It is not mentioned in any of the Bush administration interrogation memos that have so far surfaced in the press. In late 2002, commanders at the military prison at Guantánamo Bay did request authority, during interrogations, for "the use of scenarios designed to convince the detainee that death or severely painful consequence are imminent for him and/or his family."

In a December 2002 memorandum, Rumsfeld rejected a "blanket approval" of that interrogation technique, but did not rule it out completely.

I really don't have much to add. This is despicable, and a deep stain on our nation. Yet, can anyone argue that this step was not inevitable once George Bush declared his "War on Terror?" When you vow to fight the "terrorists" with the "gloves off" this is what happens: you begin to emulate the worst despots and the most criminal regimes on the planet. You view even the most heinous measures as necessary to combat your enemy, even those that were previously considered beyond the pale. You violate every law and standard of decency in pursuit of of an ever more nebulous victory. In short, you become the evil you first meant to oppose.

This is what America stands for in the 21st Century: the torture of innocent children to make their fathers confess. We've fallen a long way in a short time, haven't we?

((tag Kidnapping of Iraqis by US Forces)



Display:
There are times, and this is one of them, when I fear that one more bit of news like this will surely end my  claim to sanity. Over and over and over again, such a struggle to just absorb the evidence in front my eyes as to the wretched depths to which this government has dragged my country.

I don't know where to put any more horrors; I am full up. And I have never in my whole life felt to utterly powerless.

How can the wold survive when filled with so much hate?

I know. I need to take a break pretty badly.  But it doesn't feel right, when so many others, in so much more peril than I am, can't.  

ONward!

by scribe (scribe40@comcast.net) on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 11:12:07 PM EST
Steven, I am going to confess to you something that I have thought about while watching the suicide bombings around the world, especially in the middle east (Israel). Take this as a just a thought exercise, and not an advocacy on my part.

If someone is so angry or whatever that they will kill themselves in a suicide bombing of say my family, how could you/I every prevent this when that actual bomber is willing to die.  Well, what if you made it blanket policy that the family of a suicide bomber would be ___ (fill in some heinous action such as killed, tortured, imprisoned forever, etc.)  I know it sounds extreme in a casual conversation, but if the survival on one's society or even one's own family was at stake, would such actions maybe be justified as a preventative measure toward other suicide bombings/bombers??  I mean even if the suicide bombers don't care about their lives, they might care about their family members' lives.  What kinder, gentler alternative is available to deal with suicide terrorist bombing prevention??

by NG on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 12:59:11 PM EST
And then what will the next layer of escalation be?  And the next and the next.  Guess we could just eliminate all of that and bomb us all back to the stone age, eh?

Grandma Jo
by glitterscale (glitteryscale@yahoo.com) on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 01:17:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am not the religious type, but that friction between the competing concepts of an eye for an eye versus turning the other cheek seems like it shows here very clearly!  From afar, turning the other cheek is easy to propose, but when you are in the fight with your loved one's welfare at potential stake, I surmise that a clear threat of an eye for an eye, or a loved one's life for a loved one's life might just make good sense!
by NG on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 01:34:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"A soft answer turneth away wrath".  If we continue down the path we are currently treading we have nothing more to enjoy about this life, unless you love blood and bleeding.  I understand your fears.  I understand the underlying terror that someone could cause harm to your loved ones.  And how horrible that would be for you and for your family.  But life is not all there is in this world.  The way of living is more important, perhaps, than the way of dying.  Currently both fundies - those of our own and the islamic brands are investing a huge amount of energy and imagination in warmongering and in making their deaths important.  If you think about it realistically, less than 5000 people died on 9/11 where more than 50,000 could have been victims.  Why not 50,000?  Why not more?  I think there were a lot of people who thought they had more to live for than to die for and intuitively or not, at least 45,000 people found relative safety in that cataclysm.  Others, like the passengers that fought back, found ways to demonstrate heroism.

I believe, and you may brand me a nutter and no one will say nay, I believe that by killing over 100,000 Iraqis for less than just cause we have created an imbalance that WILL be redressed in some fashion.  And we didn't even have to do it that way.  We could have NOT invaded.  We could have invaded more sensibly knowing that the Iraqis would require more of an effort in our "democratization" efforts i.e. more troups, securing explosives, working with the Iraqis rather than imposing our own world view that was lacking in knowledge of them and their problems and KNOWING WHAT SUCCESS WOULD BE!  Instead I think Rummy and Cheney wanted to OWN Iraq and its oil.  And Bush wanted to show up his father.  None of those were legit reasons for any of the events in Iraq.

Grandma Jo

by glitterscale (glitteryscale@yahoo.com) on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 11:11:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I have no problem with your Iraq story, but in truth, Israel has been living with the reality of internal suicide bombers for a much longer time frame than Bush's Iraq War.  It is from their security perspective that I posed by question/idea about deterrence on a social family scale.  

BTW, I did not advocate this position, but just threw it out there for open minds to discuss.  Now, when I hear people go ballistic because they can't discuss something, I find that a child-like temper tantrum tactic, and will not respond!  This does not imply that you did this behavior, BTW!

by NG on Sat Jul 15th, 2006 at 10:54:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
why we allowed Isreal to put up a theocracy?  And have you ever noticed how much alike both the Jews and the Palestinians are?  They are both racial and theosophical cousins.  And yet they trade on their differences rather than the similarities.  They spend vast amounts of energy working on those differences.  I wonder if that is a human characteristic like sibling rivalry?

Grandma Jo
by glitterscale (glitteryscale@yahoo.com) on Sat Jul 15th, 2006 at 11:17:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I wonder if that is a human characteristic like sibling rivalry?

I cannot claim to have the absolute answer to why societies fight; however, I do believe that if people knew the amount of resources (including land) that they needed and those resource needs were adequately met, most wars would not happen in informed societies!  Therefore, either there are not enough resources for the societies to survive adequately (i.e., too many people for the carrying capacity of their environment either now or through the near future), or people are made to believe there are not!

by NG on Sat Jul 15th, 2006 at 11:29:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
so that some people can take over other people's power.  One is more tempted to give one's power away if one thinks by doing so one garners protection and special status.

Grandma Jo
by glitterscale (glitteryscale@yahoo.com) on Sat Jul 15th, 2006 at 02:24:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

the western corporate press, I would imagine that it would offer those Americans who might be opposed to it to develop justifications for it.

It is of course, understood that such methods would be acceptable only if implemented by Americans against Others.

The notion of such a thing being done to the families of US gunmen who might be aware of plans to attack Iraqi, or Afghani - or Lebanese cities would be an entirely different situation. Apples and oranges. :)

one man's conspiracy is another man's business plan
Blog updated as needed

by DuctapeFatwa (DuctapeFatwa@yahoo.com) on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 02:22:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The notion of such a thing being done to the families of US gunmen who might be aware of plans to attack Iraqi, or Afghani - or Lebanese cities would be an entirely different situation.

I want to give you a possibly related analogy within the US to what you are saying, even though this idea is not happening now.  It could in the future and for the very reasons you are implying.

We now have an all volunteer army in the US, and the only folks joining are either desparate for a job and willing to do anything, or are gun-ho children wishing to live out their boyhood GI JOE fantasies in real life.  Either way, this army has no conscience, and since the millions of Americans with a ? conscience don't have to feel any ill effect directly on their loved ones from what the US army does, they can just forget about it or accept the propaganda.  This is sort of like turning the other cheek internally

Now in the eye for and eye category, if the US had a mandatory FAIR draft, well this would make the pain from political decisions (good and bad) felt by everyone, at least potentially, and I very much doubt there would be as much animosity in the electorate then. A strong deterrent would likely result to political policy that was unpopular.

Bottom line I am geting at here.  Either internationally or nationally, making families feel the pain from what their loved ones do might make those loved ones and their families think a bit more before acting in the future!

by NG on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 02:39:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

whether the American people desired a society that is worthy of the name.

They might have asked whether they wished their little ones to grow up to be rapists of children in order to make rich men richer.

The policy referred to in the original article may be news to some Americans, but it is not news to the friends and families of the victims, and it is not news to a lot of people in the world.

How the US obtains its gunmen, torturers, and sexual predators or what their families think about it, is not really the most relevant question to those slated to be their victims.

Personally, I wish the US had asked different questions and made different choices about a lot of things, including activities in Iraq.

one man's conspiracy is another man's business plan
Blog updated as needed

by DuctapeFatwa (DuctapeFatwa@yahoo.com) on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 03:04:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
They might have asked whether they wished their little ones to grow up to be rapists of children in order to make rich men richer.

All society's have mentally ill people and weak and twisted minded People. These folks can be contained and restrained by dilution in the general mixed and hopefuly healthy population.  IMO, the all volunteer army is a sieve for attracting the mentally twisted and mentally weak in much greater numbers, and the results show.

A fair draft would not only force all kinds of minds into the service mix, which by itself would temper the less desirable, it would bring the families of more normal types into the mix, and that would put the political heat on our leaders to act more appropriately, at least theoretically!

by NG on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 04:21:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I 'm sure that the mothers and fathers of those who would be drafted and facing killing and death, will be greatly comforted by your theory that a widespread draft will force their leaders to waste their lives more judiciously.

"green grass and high tides forever"
by supersoling (colorsplash62@optonline.net) on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 04:59:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Are you as stunned as I am by this discussion? A discussion that even broader society considers to be so utterly repulsive that it has laws to stop actions such as the rounding up and killing of innocents? I just don't know what's become of humanity. I really don't. And I am so incensed that these ideas are even being put forth on this site that I must walk away. I simply can't bear this right now.

I have fears for humanity due to what's happening in the Middle East where who knows how many innocents will be slaughterd in the coming days and my nerves are raw. And then to walk into this...what has become of the value of life?

by catnip (llamg88 at hotmail.com) on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 05:11:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes and no.
Having your senses bombarded by one crime after another, one slide toward fascism after another...no. I guess I'm not so stunned that someone calling themselves a progressive would entertain the idea of an eye for an eye. Nothing really stuns me anymore Catnip. But I think you can see by the reaction to these ideas here that NG is clearly in a minority of one. If another steps forward to second these ideas, then I'll be worried. Otherwise it's a free speech zone, no?

"green grass and high tides forever"
by supersoling (colorsplash62@optonline.net) on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 05:19:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
...and I realize that my stance could be seen as hypocritical or uneven after my reaction to some of the things that Thereisnospoon posted here. But the difference for me was that Spoon was a frontpager and therefore could be seen as more representative of the site as a whole.

"green grass and high tides forever"
by supersoling (colorsplash62@optonline.net) on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 05:25:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
it's a free speech zone, no?

It absolutely is, for most.

by catnip (llamg88 at hotmail.com) on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 05:35:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

in writing about the practice, but expressing the view that it is despicable, a view which I personally share.

And I commend those who have expressed similar views.

The relatively small number of replies, considering the subject matter, and the fact that it is on the front page, is interesting, but under the tragic circumstances, tragically understandable...

one man's conspiracy is another man's business plan
Blog updated as needed

by DuctapeFatwa (DuctapeFatwa@yahoo.com) on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 08:30:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The point is that these mothers and fathers would not vote for a war-like political party.  Indeed, with a fair draft in place, it may well become political suicide to go to war unless the vast majority of the country is with you.  

Just yelling about how distasteful you find something is not a solution to why it happened. I (and others)am proposing here a method that could prevent the irresponsible and illogical activities from happening again that we have seen under Bush, such activities largely being allowed in the first place because of the volunteer military and the free pass it has given to too many American families to turn off their brains IMO!

by NG on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 10:12:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Have you seen any evidence yet that this current government is at all concerned with what the people think of it? And my belief is that those mothers and fathers didn't vote for this war like party. Your scenario may, in the long run, bring more pressure to bear on the powers that be, but how many thousands would die needlessly in the interim? Vietnam went on for years, with the loss of 58,ooo American, and how many millions of Vietnamese lives before before the antiwar movement in this country really began to make any real difference in the way the government projected it's power. I don't know about you, but I'm not willing to risk the lives of thousands and maybe millions more as a test to see if Bush would eventually crack under the burden.

"green grass and high tides forever"
by supersoling (colorsplash62@optonline.net) on Sat Jul 15th, 2006 at 12:26:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The lessons learned from Vietnam from the people's perspective was that their government would lie and could not be trusted in "going to war" matters.  Also learned by much of the population was that upper and middle income folks could avoid the draft while having the poorer kids die for the rich.  Indeed Congress then became more and more skeptical about executive power after Vietnam and about a draft with too many easy deferments!  Meanwhile, the conservatives learned a lesson that a fair draft would hinder their military options, so they were more than happy to see the draft end.  Now they could buy a mercenary army that would be made up of befuddled and frustrated GI JOES and would be quiet on the family front!

The ending of the draft along with the unwritten requirement that the next draft would have to be fair, has allowed us to backslide to a pre-Vietnam mentality with the majority of the voters living again in a free-pass zone concerning their loved ones securities.  Bottom line is that Vietnam re-enforces to me what I have written here, but we have been outsmarted by the conservatives who seem to know human nature a lot better than us liberals.  I stand behind me statement that a permanent FAIR draft would prevent Iraq and Vietnam from being politically feasible!!  Indeed, it may well be the only solution to such war-mongering.

by NG on Sat Jul 15th, 2006 at 12:42:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
NG, I'm sorry but I can't even begin to go where you are headed with this.

Kill, torture or imprison innocent people because their relatives are violent?  Suppose we make the minor children of bank robbers work off their parents debt?  Suppose we hold the citizens of every nation that has committed atrocities responsible and imprison, enslave or torture them.

It will never be okay with me to do what you suggest. You ask what if the survival of one's society is at stake?  If a society is willing to kill, torture or imprison children to get at their parents, I don't believe that such a society will survive any way.  Justifying such acts, would lead to rationalization of all kinds of violence.

An eye for an eye has never worked.  There are, unfortunately, times when we have to resort to violence to protect ourselves. These times, however, are probably far fewer than we think and act on.

We are never going to be completely safe from those who wish to harm us and our loved ones.  That's life.  I will, however, never condone the harming of innocents to increase my chances. That's one reason I am so repulsed by the statement "We're fighting  them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here."  It assumes that the civilian casualties over there are less important than the loss of civilians here would be.  It says we are using women and children as human shields.  Not acceptable to me.


If you want things to get better, be prepared to deal with change.

by Kahli on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 03:19:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Two points:

We do not punish guilty people with life sentences or executions to reform them.  We do it to restrain them and to act as deterrents to others to not repeat these kinds of acts.  So deterrence in societal actions has precedent, at least on the guilty.

As for innocent family members suffering.  A violent parent or any member of a family is lkely causing these innocents to suffer as is, so it is not like they have no ill effects from the actions of the violent party. Just extend that suffering a bit more into the deterrence category.

I hear want you are saying, and I am not disagreeing with you.  It is just that a case could be made to use deterrence on a family societal scale on one society to protect another society's innocents from violent folks in the first society.

by NG on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 04:32:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As for innocent family members suffering.  A violent parent or any member of a family is lkely causing these innocents to suffer as is, so it is not like they have no ill effects from the actions of the violent party. Just extend that suffering a bit more into the deterrence category.

Do you even realize how many family members would be rounded up and tortured/maimed/killed according to your theory of so-called deterence?

Guilt by association?

Has America not witnessed enough of that with mosque bombings, communist witch hunts, lynchings and assasinations of civil rights leaders and advocates? I could go on and on.

Have you seriously considered the ramifications of what you are defending here?

You really think that excutions deter people? Think again.

Has society become so insanely crippled that all it can muster is the animal instinct to kill its enemies? Even animals don't take out retribution on entire families for the actions of one. But humans, as a rational, evolved species ought to?

I cannot even begin to tell you how repulsed I am by this entire concept. If one of your family members strays down the wrong path are you responsible? Should you then be tortured/maimed/killed despite any efforts you made to help your brother or sister to reform? And what if they suffer from some psychaitric condition that is untreatable or incurable? Should you be forced to deal with any consequences of their untoward behaviour?

Do you honestly believe what you're advocating? If so, any words of mine are obviously useless if you're unable to see the utter inhumanity of your stance.

I simply cannot believe that someone who considers themselves a member of the so-called progressive community would advocate such practices, but I do recall sending a protest e-mail to one of the firedoglake writers who also condoned the 'ticking time bomb theory' of torture in the past, so you are not alone. She did not, however, write anything close to what you have proposed here, which I consider to be absolutely appalling.

by catnip (llamg88 at hotmail.com) on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 04:59:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As to your first point, it is clear that executions and life sentences do not deter people from committing violent crimes; if it did our prisons would have been empty long ago. Even if we did accept the idea of deterrence as valid, your last phrase is the key.  Under our laws we punish the guilty. (Or at least those found guilty in court.)  That is why the holding and torturing of detainees without charge is so horrible.  They are being punished without being found guilty - or even being charged.  I have no problem with punishing anyone who commits an act of terror.  I have a big problem with punishing someone who might possibly maybe have committed an act of terror. I have an even bigger problem with punishing his or her family members in order to try to prove they have committed a crime.

As for your second point, yes violent people cause their family members to suffer in any number of ways.  I don't see how that gives the state the right to inflict further suffering on people who are innocent.

I believe the kind of reasoning you are using is grounded in the same place as rationalizations that accept torture or preemptive strikes over threats that are not imminent.  "The ends justify the means" can be used to make just about any case.

I gather from what you have written that you are posing a question rather than promoting a policy. How does a society respond to violence?  

The answer to the question is complicated, gut- wrenching and heart-searing.  But I do not believe that punishing, kidnapping or imprisoning innocents can possibly be a solution.

If you want things to get better, be prepared to deal with change.

by Kahli on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 05:35:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Indeed, it is a question only, but one that I have thought about from Israel's perspective.  It is hard to transfer what happens in Israel to the US situation where suicide bombing terrorists are not living normally among us.  In Israel, suicide bombing terrorists are a constant and real threat to their social fabric.  I was just thinking that from the Israeli perspective, an effective deterrence toward a suicidal bomber would have to effect something besides fear of that terrorists life.  Now thinking how that might be accomplished lead to this line of thinking.  It makes some sense, but no I am not advocating it, just throwing out the idea as if I was a frightened Israeli politician!
by NG on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 10:05:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

that the Iraqi Resistance, or Hezbollah, for example, join the US in its adoption of the practice, in order to deter US or Israeli operatives from their activities?

And may we also assume that you would be opposed to the US recruiters utilizing it as a deterrent to individuals who might be reluctant to enlist, or in the case of a draft, a deterrent to those who might seek to avoid it?

one man's conspiracy is another man's business plan
Blog updated as needed

by DuctapeFatwa (DuctapeFatwa@yahoo.com) on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 10:23:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The presence and practice of internal suicidal terrorism is an absolute step toward social anarchy and chaos. Any legitimate government has a duty to prevent chaos, and in the case of internal suicidal bombers, I am hard pressed to come up with a kind and gentle tactic that would work.

Before even going near such unusual and distasteful deterrent practices, the problem one was trying to solve would have to be extreme, as if the society could not survive if the problem was not solved.  This is not something that should be used casually or routinely or thought about maybe ever.

by NG on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 10:33:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

an acceptable practice for the Palestinian or Iraqi Resistance to emulate?

These are both examples of societies living under brutal occupations, the problem they are trying to solve is extreme, and their society cannot survive if the problem is not solved.

Similarly, a US military in dire need of gunmen to staff its expanding operations might make the same argument, should they find themselves having an extremely hard time persuading individuals to join up, or in the case of a draft, if there should be a large number of "dodgers"

And it is not out of the question to ask if you would favor the policy expanded to include civilian domestic uses, for example a city with an increasing crime rate, might raping the wives and children of gang members who commit drive-by shootings and other crimes be effective? One can certainly imagine the police chief of a city in such a plight describing the situation as extreme, and a problem that must be solved if the city is to survive.

one man's conspiracy is another man's business plan
Blog updated as needed

by DuctapeFatwa (DuctapeFatwa@yahoo.com) on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 11:00:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ductapefatwa, I really like the way you think,  No, really! Your insights are almost unmatched in many areas.  Who are you??

As for you examples above, I guess that is why we have wars and conflicts because questions such as those related to societal survival are real, do occur, and human pacifists have not been able to stop the almost inevitable resultant conflicts.

On more point!   I said legitimate governments have a right to stop-prevent chaos.  A legitimate government must meet the needs of the overwhelming majority of its people, and be accountable to them. Let me leave it at that because I know this will just become a circular argument.  Still, I really do enjoy your insight, so keep it up!

by NG on Sat Jul 15th, 2006 at 11:05:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

is another man's business plan, so is one man's legitimate government another man's terrorist cartel. And to the victims, what you or I or anyone else may consider the entity under whose auspices they were killed, is irrelevant. They are equally dead, and the larger society, to which we all belong, is equally diminished.

Aside from moral considerations, which will be, to some, so considerable, to dramatically understate it, the practice of harming the relatives of individuals who commit particular acts, regardless of their motives and regardless of whether they acted under their own auspices only or in association with or as a representative of some other entity, is one which, if it is "thought through," achieves little beyond the alimentation of the urge that some have to do harm to others.

I think we are agreed on this much: the same argument you posit can easily be posed by others regarding any number of situations, and most relevant to the example presented by the original post, were the Iraqi Resistance to emulate the US in this practice, although it might be thought of by the Americans as "apples and oranges," as is the case all aspects of exceptionalism, even the most distasteful, unless the Iraqis agree with that apples and oranges principle, which I believe it is fair to say that is so unlikely that it can be discounted as a possibility, the belief of the Americans does not really have a relationship with the reality of the harm that would be done to their own countrymen.

You say that you are thinking of it in terms of an Israeli perspective, and Israel does in fact have a policy of destroying the homes of those who have committed crimes, or are suspected of having committed crimes, and if you are a regular reader of Israeli papers, you will be aware that more than one editorial writer, and even in some cases, public officials, have suggested murdering the families of "suicide bombers."

Nor is the idea a new one. It has quite a long history, in both east and west, though it could not really be said, in modern parlance, to have a good "track record."

It is unlikely that Israelis would feel safer should the Palestinians, or Hezbollah, decide that the most effective way to deter IDF members from destroying homes and murdering humans would be to rape the wives and children of the individuals who commit these acts, nor is it likely that such a practice would achieve the goal of driving out the invaders and ending the occupation and slaughter.

And in my opinion, it would be similarly unsuccessful if employed by the Iraqi Resistance.

Its use by the Americans does not appear to have caused many Iraqis to change their views regarding the Occupation there, and I do not think that it would result in a successful vanquishment of the Americans should the method be deployed against them.

Thus, when thought through, even after carefully laying aside the moral aspect, we are able to see that while there may be a certain sector who find the idea attractive as they ponder methods to accomplish goals with which THEY agree, it may lose a bit of that attractiveness if one contemplates one's opponent using it as a method to accomplish THEIR goals, and thus its use in Iraq becomes yet another regrettable decision, and one that it might be similarly unwise to consider for domestic use, no matter how extreme the situation.

I hope I managed to convey my thoughts coherently. In the interest of full disclosure, I am obliged to say that I am opposed to rape as well as to torture, under any circumstances whatsoever, regardless of situation extremity, and regardless of who does it to whom.

You have asked who I am. What better way can any of us know who someone is than to know their thoughts?

There is a link to my blog in my sig. It has been recently updated, and there you will find many of my thoughts.
 

one man's conspiracy is another man's business plan
Blog updated as needed

by DuctapeFatwa (DuctapeFatwa@yahoo.com) on Sat Jul 15th, 2006 at 05:11:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thus, when thought through, even after carefully laying aside the moral aspect, we are able to see that while there may be a certain sector who find the idea attractive as they ponder methods to accomplish goals with which THEY agree, it may lose a bit of that attractiveness if one contemplates one's opponent using it as a method to accomplish THEIR goals,

I will make this brief and as realistic to world history as I can, something quite overlooked in these parts!  

  1.  There is a difference in gut response between defending one's homeland and trying to make some distant invasion/crusade successful  

  2. Might makes right can be distasteful, but the history of the world is full of injustice from the weaker side's point of view that in the long run such injustice meant nothing.

Translation to the current discussion.  Israel is not on a crusade but defending its homeland and its very existence, so do not expect restraint especially considering #2 above.  Israel perceives itself as far superior militarily to its local foes, and as such will destroy them if it has to survive.  

An analogy!  I know you all feel the American Indian saga to be shameful, but in a way it meets all these 2 criteria. The Americans were fighting for their envisioned homeland and they had vast superiority militarily.  End results is here we are, and even if we feel sorry about what we did, do we really!!??

by NG on Sun Jul 16th, 2006 at 10:51:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There is a very simple alternative to threatening a "suicider's" family and thereby multiplying the number of 'suiciders.' Oddly enough, it's a method from the hated BIBLE. Love your enemy, turn the other cheek and do unto others as you would have others unto you. In policy terms, this would have translated into a 'Marshall Plan' for the Middle East, including building a school system to rival the Madrasas, infrastructure building, etc. It would have meant passing up the opportunity to become a police state after 9/11 and reserving the many hundreds of billions of dollars we have spend so far in hunting the wrong countries for a few extremely naughty people in caves. It would have meant passing up a world war. (When has a Bush passed up starting a world war?)

Now that our great Christian President has ignored even the basic tenants of the Judeo-Christian tradition, we are basically in the position your thought experiment speaks of. The problem with the 'blanket' policy of threatening families is that it moves more people into the realm of the desperate and homicidal. The desperate tend to be able to take their religious beliefs more seriously when it comes to laying their lives on the line. Systematically removing all the bread winners from a village is not going to help the next generation come to different conclusions vis-a-vis the value of life. Especially when you grab and torture the wrong 12-year old.

Might I suggest that we all take a brief moment to steal ourselves against a suicide bomb attack (bearing in mind that the odds of your being directly, mortally effected are, well as zero as zero gets in predicting the future), take more personal responsibility for your own family's safety (Goverment is good at bombing clean up, not complete prevention), and above all else, love your enemy by providing an alternative, any alternative, to desperation. Otherwise you are just multiplying the number of people who have reason to die just to kill you. Family by family. Systematically, as a blanket policy.

Sorry, there is just no way to eye-for-an-eye your way our of this. There is just no way that you are minimizing the threat to your family by intimidating and mistreating the families of those who do. There is no path to safety or peace can be articulated that starts here. There are many paths if we take our lumps for the blowback for the cheap energy we've already enjoyed and begin the process of buying a reasonable increase in our safety with good will.

Viva Presidente Ezequiel - Aquí no hay quien viva!

by anarchronarchist (mincers (-at-) hotmail (-dot-) com) on Sat Jul 15th, 2006 at 12:05:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
we are basically in the position your thought experiment speaks of

Well thank you for at least recognizing this fact and not throwing a temper tantrum!!  God I hate group think and the manipulative methods that lead to it!

A brief comment on your well thought out response above.  In an ideal world with minimal social emotional pressure to respond and guarantee future security in real time perspective, what you say is fine. However, the history of mankind suggests it is not realistic, and so I pose the more realistic question of alternative methods that might work in real time.  Sure they might not with relatively equal adversaries at each other's throats, and your scenarios would result.  However, the reality of the world has been that might makes right, and the more powerful combatant is likely to win in an all out social struggle.  Sorry!

by NG on Sat Jul 15th, 2006 at 11:17:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
However, the history of mankind suggests it is not realistic,

See: South Africa, Apartheid

just for starters...

And in case you want to know why I had a "tantrum":

Torture is not a progressive value. Period. This is a progressive community. To read such a proposal on a site like this is an affront. Sure, you have the right to post it (but if you were a right-wing troll, it would've been troll-rated and hidden pretty damn fast), but you shouldn't have expected a ho hum reaction. This is an extreme position you're positing. Expect reactions in the same realm.

by catnip (llamg88 at hotmail.com) on Sat Jul 15th, 2006 at 05:38:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't believe there is any possible way you can have thought this idea through, even a little bit.

At least I hope not.

Human rights, politics, social issues and food!
Human Beams Magazine

by Nanette (nanette at humanbeams dot com) on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 10:36:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This is what America stands for in the 21st Century: the torture of innocent children to make their fathers confess. We've fallen a long way in a short time, haven't we?

What I'm wondering is... how do we recover from this stuff? Not so much how do we recover our international reputation, although that matters... but how do we recover something we've never really been, on the ground here at home?

It's possible that... maybe... some of the more egregious crimes will be stopped with a different administration, a different congress... but then it's also possible that the programs will just be brought under congressional oversight and continued, like some of the wiretapping and other scandals that are going on. And the things that have gone on in the past, under the radar.

That there is not widespread outrage about reports like this and other reported stuff doesn't give me a lot of hope of big structural changes being made, although cosmetic ones will probably be. We really need a societal sea change, top to bottom, sigh.

Thanks for bringing out this story.

Human rights, politics, social issues and food!
Human Beams Magazine

by Nanette (nanette at humanbeams dot com) on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 10:45:23 PM EST


Display:
Go to: [ Booman Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]
Menu
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password





Proud member of

The Liberal Blog Network

a FeedBurner Network


Advertise in The Liberal Blog Network

Subscribe to this network

A-List Blogger

Find textbooks at Alibris!

NOTE: Overstock bests Amazon's prices and is "blue."

THE BOOKS WITH "BUZZ":
______________

Learn the real story behind the WMD in Iraq:

The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism
by Ron Suskind

Read Barack Obama's vision for America:

The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream
by Barack Obama

DaveW recommends:

I Am a Strange Loop
by Douglas Hofstadter

Need some laughs?

I Am America (and So Can You!)
by Stephen Colbert

rae recommends:

Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire
by Morris Berman.

On BooMan’s shelf:

The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End
by Peter W. Galbraith

This looks interesting:

Adventure Divas
by Holly Morris

Here’s a good one from
Elizabeth Gilbert:

Eat Pray Love
by Elizabeth Gilbert

"Crash" * Best Motion Picture, Academy Awards * Only $11.79 at Overstock * 2006 SAG Winner, Best Ensemble

Check out
Powell's new section:
NEW FAVORITES

Selected new arrivals at 30% off

Recommended by Indianadem and ejmw:
The Conscience of a Liberal
by Paul Wellstone

From northcountry’s bookshelf:

The New Golden Age:
The Coming Revolution Against
Political Corruption and Economic Chaos
by Ravi Batra

A novel about contractors in Iraq from the woman that runs The Spy That Billed Me:

Outsourced: A Novel
from RJ Hillhouse.


SOTW-120x90
Download Sleeper Cell on iTunes (Better than "24") Download Weeds on iTunes (Hilarious 1/2-hour adult comedy starring Mary-Louise Parker) Download Late Nite with Conan O'Brien on iTunes
John Belushi - SNL
Download South Park on iTunes
Verve Vault

James Hunter - People Gonna Talk:
James Hunter - People Gonna Talk
icon


Great Deals
----- * ^ * -----

Find mystery novels by Nancy Pickard ("Kansas")



Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power by Phyllis Bennis (interviewed on DN!)


Featured by Keith Olbermann, New (Powell's Sale): Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower by William Blum (whose other books merit serious consideration)


"Explosive" State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration
by James Risen


The book the CIA doesn't want you to read: Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA's Key Field Commander
Larry Johnson's review


BT's all-time best seller:

PERMACULTURE:
A Designers' Manual

$79.95 * Sale: $59.95


Unequal Sisters: A Multicultural Reader in U.S. Women's History (Third Edition)


The Undercover Economist: Exposing Why the Rich Are Rich, the Poor Are Poor And Why You Can Never Buy a Decent Used Car!


The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl
by Timothy Egan


Green Press Initiative
----- * ^ * -----


Journalistas: 100 Years of the Best Writing and Reporting by Women Journalists by Eleanor Mills * NYT review


Bury Me Standing: the Gypsies & Their Journey


1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus



Brokeback Mountain
by Annie Proulx
----- * ^ * -----
Check out Powell's
"At The Movies"


Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World by Noam Chomsky (Power & Terror: Post 9-11 Talks)


The Price of Privilege:

How Parental Pressure and
Material Advantage Are Creating a Generation of
Disconnected and Unhappy Kids

by Madeline Levine


Save 35-70% on
name brand clothing,
footwear, and outdoor gear
at SierraTradingPost.com

:





We listened to PEN American Center's "State of Emergency" and found 1940s books by Curzio Malaparte only at Alibris. (Selection (MP3) excerpted from "The Skin.")

Alibris - Books You Thought You'd Never Find
Banned Books * Are you a fan of Film Noir, Art House, Documentaries or Hong Kong Action? * Searching for a long-lost children's book or a first printing of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue on vinyl? Find it at Alibris!

:
:
www.Patagonia.com



Booman Tribune Homepage
admin@boomantribune.com
powered by Scoop

A-List Blogger

Blogarama - The Blog Directory

More blogs about Blogs at Technorati.

Listed on BlogShares

© 2007 Booman Tribune