Iraq: Whose Ox Is Gored?

stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust

Posted April 26, 2008 | 12:40 PM (EST)



Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

Whenever I hear some new disclosure of torture or other abuse committed in the name of my country, I think back to something I remember near the start of the war in Iraq. On March 23, 2003, just days after the American invasion, the first pictures of U.S. soldiers killed, wounded and taken captive were broadcast on television.

The pictures had been taken by Iraqi TV and transmitted worldwide by the Arab news channel Al Jazeera. They showed Americans lying dead and wounded in pools of blood, and U.S. captives being questioned by Iraqis, including one American POW who was lying badly wounded being seized by the hair and forced to sit up by his interrogator.

CBS broadcast some of the video on Face the Nation, NBC showed a dead U.S. soldier and an interview with one of the POWs, and other networks including ABC, CNN and Fox News broadcast still frames taken from the video. So did Matt Drudge on his website.

The Bush administration was outraged by release of the pictures. Then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared that Iraq and Al Jazeera broke international law by making them available. "The Geneva Convention makes it illegal for prisoners of war to be shown and pictured and humiliated," he said, "it's something the United States does not do...we treat our prisoners well...and the United States, of course, avoids showing photographs of prisoners of war."

That last turned out not to be true (not to mention the line about treating our prisoners well). Pictures of Iraqi POWs had already been shown on American television.

Rumsfeld's spokeswoman, Victoria Clarke, was as angry as her boss. She called Iraq's release of the pictures of U.S. POWs "a blatant violation of the Geneva Convention." "Disgusting," added Lt. Gen. John Abizaid, then Deputy Commander of CENTCOM. "I regard the showing of those pictures as unacceptable."

And President Bush warned that anyone who abused captured Americans would be treated as a war criminal. "I do know that we expect them to be treated humanely," Bush said, "just like we'll treat any prisoners of theirs that we capture humanely."

The authors of those comments seem to have ignored a memo by then White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales. On January 25, 2002, more than a year before the Iraq invasion, Gonzales had advised Bush that "the war on terrorism is a new kind of war" that "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitation on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders some of its provisions quaint."

So even as they were criticized Saddam's violations of the Geneva Conventions, Bush's lawyer ("mi abogado," as Bush cutely referred to him) had made the judgment that those rules were "quaint" and "obsolete," a judgment Bush confirmed at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Bagram and in other torture chambers around the world.

In view of the long and frightening list of horrors that the United States has committed on hundreds of prisoners we've taken in Iraq and elsewhere, before and since then, the administration's comments on American POWs are beyond ironic, almost beyond hypocrisy. It really does depend on whose ox is gored, doesn't it?

We've come a long way since March 2003. A long way down.

 
 

Comments
12
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:

mmmm

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:45 PM on 04/26/2008

Here's what I like about Sandy Goodman's blogs. He lays out the facts and let's us reach our own conclusions. No fulminating. No arm-twisting. Just the facts. And in this case, it's inescapable, isn't it? And damning! Let's have more from Mr. Goodman, who really elevates the art of blogging.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:53 AM on 04/27/2008

But we did, and do (generally), treat uniformed prisoners of an enemy nation's army within the strictures of the Geneva Conventions. You fail to mention that the terrorists and thugs we are fighting are not legal combatants; they are more pirates and murderers than anything else.

Try to keep fair and balanced, okay?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:12 PM on 04/26/2008

Are the persons detained at Guantanamo "legal combatants"? No less an authority than your illustrious President assures us that they are. Otherwise, he says, he couldn't and wouldn't keep them there at all. Instead he would be forced to treat tham as common criminals, and they would get trials in the federal court system instead of the military kangaroo court.

However, he (and the rednecks of the world) refuse to acknowledge that this decision carries with it certain responsibilities under International Law, including acceptance of the right of their comrades in arms to confront our military on an openly adversarial basis. See Lewis and Clark Law Review, Volume 11, P. 997, "Hamdan, Terror, War" by Professor Allen S. Weiner, Senior Lecturer in Law, Stanford Law Scool.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:39 PM on 04/27/2008

Only a fool or a comedian would try to carry the label of redneck with honor.

Are the persons detained at Guantanamo "legal combatants"? No less an authority than your illustrious President assures us that they are. Otherwise, he says, he couldn't and wouldn't keep them there at all. Instead he would be forced to treat tham as common criminals, and they would get trials in the federal court system instead of the military kangaroo court.

However, he (and the rednecks of the world) refuse to acknowledge that this decision carries with it certain responsibilities under International Law, including acceptance of the right of their comrades in arms to confront our military on an openly adversarial basis. See Lewis and Clark Law Review, Volume 11, P. 997, "Hamdan, Terror, War" by Professor Allen S. Weiner, Senior Lecturer in Law, Stanford Law Scool.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:14 AM on 04/27/2008

CornellRedneck:

OK, who is it OK for us to torture? Pirates, murderers, thugs, hookers, congressmen... (Please, not hookers). Please provide a list of tortureable classes of people and your legal precedents (excluding anything related to Bush 43). When the Japanese water boarded during WW II, we prosecuted that as a war crime. What has changed?

What is your justification for torture?

Or is it a basic moral principle that torture is always wrong, and/or a fact that the confessions obtained by torture are rarely true? Or that allowing our guys to torture legitimizes the bad guys doing bad things to our guys when they get captured...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:24 PM on 04/26/2008

Fullchat, the Japanese during WWII tortured our troops, who were uniformed legal combatants. Illegal conduct.

"Pirates, murderers, thugs, (not hookers, thankfully!) are OUTLAWS, therefore without any rights. To be disposed of in any fashion. Like insects. If the GCs wanted to cover such scum, they would have, agreed?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:59 PM on 04/26/2008

I remember the WWII Germans and Japanese. Didn't they have actual armies, etc.?

I'm just asking.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:37 PM on 04/27/2008

The uniform is not determinative. There are standards of treatment for EVERYONE in custody. And torture is against the law. Period.

Illegal combatants is a category made up by the Bush Administration to justify the ill treatment of prisoners. It has no standing in law. See above about torture and ill treatment of prisoners.

And for your information: Pirates were accorded due process of the law. It was not legal to torture or kill them without a trial or hearing.

If America is such a great country why do we stoop to the practices of our enemies? The only protection American POW's have is the protection afforded by our enemies. If we treat enemy prisoners humanely there is a HOPE, and nothing more than a hope, that our POWS will be accorded similar treatment.

But when we torture or treat inhumanely, that insubstantial hope is destroyed.

Are you in favor of inhumane treatment of Americans in captivity? Because the best way to assure that outcome is to have us mistreat prisoners in OUR custody.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:08 PM on 04/26/2008


(generally)

they are terrorists and thugs, pirates and murderers.

And we're not, so there.

At least we're not, until we actually are.

Civilians are not "legal combatants" either, so it's O.K. when we blow them away.

To accomplish what exactly? To dishonor everything the United States stands for?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:29 PM on 04/26/2008

Oh, I suppose in your revisionist world we did wrong in crushing the Germans and Japanese in the quickest and least costly (our troops lives, remember?) possible, eh?

Carpet bombing, anyone?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:03 PM on 04/26/2008

I remeber the WWII Germans and Japanese. Didn't they have actual armies, etc.?

I'm just asking.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:15 AM on 04/27/2008
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in

 
 

 
 
Related Tags
 

 Site  Web ask.com